Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/12/2005 4:03:28 PM EDT
I think those of you who claim 9mm isn't a lethal round may want to reconsider based on this. Link I'm talking primarily about the last case on the page (scroll down).
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:17:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:24:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
img.photobucket.com/albums/v70/ZakkWylde470/45Ad.jpg



AGNTSA In all seriousness, would those people be any less dead if shot with a .45 vs. a 9mm ? IMO, the damage would've been the same and just as fatal either way.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:30:08 PM EDT
I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't lethal. The debate centers around how quickly it will incapacitate.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:54:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't lethal. The debate centers around how quickly it will incapacitate.



Yeah, makes sense, but have any reliable studies been done to prove/disprove just how rapidly any calibers incapacitate ? I know about Marshall and Sanow, but the accuracy of their data is controversial. Same with the Strasbourg tests. It is known that both .45 and 9mm exhibit similar performance in gelatin.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:00:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't lethal. The debate centers around how quickly it will incapacitate.



That's it in a nutshell!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:01:51 PM EDT
taggage
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 12:12:36 AM EDT
Based on the links in the top post,and the picture of the gelatin tests that I just posted, my conclusion is that 9mm and .45 are both adequately lethal when good shot placement is employed. In the gelatin test photo, 9mm and .45 perform pretty much equally here. So the question is, which is the fastest at producing incapacitation and why ? My humble opinion is that it doesn't matter because with the bullets' equal performance in gelatin, it could be said that they would perform equally in humans, too. Given that, I think it's safe to conclude that any handgun from .380 Auto to 9mm, to .40s&W and 10mm to.45ACP will do the job with a choice of proper ammunition designed for the job that performs to the established FBI standards combined with good shot placement and multiple shots (regardless of caliber) will stop an attacker. Sorry if I am perhaps stating the obvious. I really think the differences in incapaciation speed from time shot with a 9mm to collapsing and incapacitation from the time someone is shot with .45ACP is really going to matter much. We're probably talking about a difference of one or two seconds of difference, if that much.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 1:12:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:14:35 AM EDT
More holes means more blood out too.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:43:43 AM EDT
awwwwwwwwwwwwww man


looks like bratwurst.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:26:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VBC:
More holes means more blood out too.




Cool, 7 to 10 rounds outta do the trick
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:31:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Horik:

Originally Posted By VBC:
More holes means more blood out too.




Cool, 7 to 10 rounds outta do the trick



Not like 18
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:35:05 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:38:25 PM EDT
my liver hurts
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 10:51:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By Horik:

Originally Posted By VBC:
More holes means more blood out too.




Cool, 7 to 10 rounds outta do the trick



Not like 18




+1

The body going into shock is what eventually leads to death right?

Link Posted: 12/26/2005 5:12:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 5:13:23 AM EDT by lonegunman]
Has anyone really shot a jelly filled person? Because people that shoot the regular gunbags seem to prefer the 45. The military is currently reviewing their pistol and caliber choice because guys want the 45 back. If you cant hit shit, 15 tries may be whats required.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 12:19:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 12:22:52 PM EDT by Bob1984]

Originally Posted By lonegunman:
Has anyone really shot a jelly filled person? Because people that shoot the regular gunbags seem to prefer the 45. The military is currently reviewing their pistol and caliber choice because guys want the 45 back. If you cant hit shit, 15 tries may be whats required.



Shot placement. Also, the military uses ball, which is known to overpenetrate, esp in 9mm. Combine poor shot placement (lack of training) with ammo that icepicks through people, and it should be no wonder why there are failures to stop. .45 ball isn't particularly effective, either (even though I know popular "history" says otherwise). I think we really need to consider ignoring Hague and issuing combat troops some effective ammo, say 5.56 JSP perhaps, and 9mm JHP ? Maybe spend some money on giving them better tactical pistol training, too. There's much better training available on the civilian side. That may be part of the reason why security contractors (such as Blackwater) are in favor now. They have better training and can use whatever ammo they want because they're not a military unit. .45 is preferred by many people because of its' history, its' commonly asserted "stopping power" (which is no more/less than similar pistol calibers) and its' recoil characteristics. .45 can be pretty accurate and a lot of shooters prefer the recoil of a .45 to that of a 9mm or a .40 because 9mm/.40 recoil is more "sharp" and has more "snap" to it, while .45 is more of a "push", even though .45 has more recoil energy. 9mm is the better round ballistically if you were to attempt long-range shooting with a pistol because 9mm has a higher velocity/flatter trajectory, but that has nothing to do with the terminal ballistics issue or military use.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 10:40:02 AM EDT
Yes, both calibers are lethal, if shot placement is right. Either will kill very quicky if you hit the heart, aorta, liver, spine or other vital spots. The same is true of a .38 special, .380, or .22LR.

I think the .45ACP shines a little brighter than 9mm in that it is better at allowing a marginally placed shot to incapacitate. The same is true for a .357 magnum versus the .45ACP.

In a real fight, a round going right where you want it is a bit rare, so the next best thing is a round that gets close and still gets the job done.

Link Posted: 12/31/2005 9:25:27 PM EDT
People can debate it all the live long day. I always ask which would you rather be shot with? The answer is always neither. It will always be a case of shot placement. If you are shot straight through the heart witha a .22 long rifle you will be far worse off than if somebady shoots you in the foot with a .44 magnum except you will limp less because you will be dead. Obviously if you wound someone with a more powerful weapon they will be incapacitated and not so with a small weapon. That being said if you are in a gun battle or fending off an attacker are you going to try to wound or kill. We should all know that anytime a weapon is drawn for defense it is not with the intention of wounding the other guy. In the heat of a shootout shot placement will most likely suffer which is why I pack a .45 or a .357 but on center mass hits I'm sure it is a minor difference . I'm positive if you shoot a mugger in the stomach with a .45 and his accomplice in the stomach with a 9mm and then ask each one how they feel they will both groan with a similar intensity.It will always be a question of shot placement. On a side note the .22 LR is a devastating round in the human body because if it strikes hard surfaces such as bone it bounces around like a bowling pin.This is even more true of shots in the skull. Many x-rays I've viewed while on duty at our hospitals trauma center bear this out.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 3:47:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By lonegunman:
Has anyone really shot a jelly filled person? Because people that shoot the regular gunbags seem to prefer the 45. The military is currently reviewing their pistol and caliber choice because guys want the 45 back. If you cant hit shit, 15 tries may be whats required.



Shot placement. Also, the military uses ball, which is known to overpenetrate, esp in 9mm. Combine poor shot placement (lack of training) with ammo that icepicks through people, and it should be no wonder why there are failures to stop. .45 ball isn't particularly effective, either (even though I know popular "history" says otherwise). I think we really need to consider ignoring Hague and issuing combat troops some effective ammo, say 5.56 JSP perhaps, and 9mm JHP ? Maybe spend some money on giving them better tactical pistol training, too. There's much better training available on the civilian side. That may be part of the reason why security contractors (such as Blackwater) are in favor now. They have better training and can use whatever ammo they want because they're not a military unit. .45 is preferred by many people because of its' history, its' commonly asserted "stopping power" (which is no more/less than similar pistol calibers) and its' recoil characteristics. .45 can be pretty accurate and a lot of shooters prefer the recoil of a .45 to that of a 9mm or a .40 because 9mm/.40 recoil is more "sharp" and has more "snap" to it, while .45 is more of a "push", even though .45 has more recoil energy. 9mm is the better round ballistically if you were to attempt long-range shooting with a pistol because 9mm has a higher velocity/flatter trajectory, but that has nothing to do with the terminal ballistics issue or military use.

Yeah, lets go ahead and blatantly defy the geneva accords and then let the libtards on us I agree it should be about bigger better faster rounds but it's not. War is a continuation of politics by different means. It's a fact that we sadly have to live with.


Dude had been shot through his inferior vena cava, Biggest vein in the body. I've never seen anyone survive a shot to it. EMT since 2000. I've seen a lot of people shot. LOTS shot for shot a .45 does more damage. Bodies are torn into shreads better by .45 JHP than they are 9mm JHP. Bodies are also NOT ballistic gelatin, OR wet newspaper, OR trees. They are flesh of different strengths and thicknesses, and bone, and liquid and in some cases empty cavities. Given the choice between only .45 and 9mm I wouldnt worry for a second about using the excuse that if you get a 9 you can train more,
You can spend over 5 bills on a good gun but can't afford to train enough with it?

Since when is your life not worth the 3 bucks a box extra to train with the same amount of ammo?

Do you really want to say that "I'll take a 9 cause I get 15 or 17 or 18 rounds and I can shoot em more times so it does more damage"?

Again, train more and you'll only have to shoot them 2-3 times and not worry about the inevitable lawsuit that is accompanied by the headline "gun nut shoots jackass robber 17 times"

We've all heard, "if that bullet was one more millimeter to the right you'd be dead" Don't you want that millimeter covered?

Seriously, the only excuse for not shooting a .45 over something less effective is that you can't get back on target very quick with the .45 for follow up shots. That's why I don't shooter a .45, well that, and shit happens and I want more rounds. I shoot a .40. And before all you people go "99% of gunfights happen at less than 21 feet and have less than 3 rounds fired" Your right. So am I when I say that 99% of people that carry will never be involved in a gun fight. If your gonna be prepared do it right. Train like your going to war tommorrow, carry a good reliable gun like a sig, HK, or Glock, train some more. Get 10 mags and randomly pick them up and load different amounts of ammo in them and go shoot a uspsa style course and practice reloading as fast as you can. Practice clearing jams constantly. Practice all this so much you don't have to think about it when it happens, you just react.

Practice the draw, double tap, holster, draw, double tap, holster, till you see a target, decide to shoot it, and then your hand draws your eyes and hands coordinate and shoot the target without any real thought on your part. You do this, with stress added, and hit em with 2 in the chest and one in the head in less than a 1.4 or 1.5 seconds consistantly, and have a gun that you know will go bang everytime, and a bullet that inflicts the max amount of damage, add a HUGE dose of luck, and you might, just might survive the gunfight that I pray none of us ever have to get into.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 10:08:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 10:09:15 PM EDT by HercMech]

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By lonegunman:
Has anyone really shot a jelly filled person? Because people that shoot the regular gunbags seem to prefer the 45. The military is currently reviewing their pistol and caliber choice because guys want the 45 back. If you cant hit shit, 15 tries may be whats required.



Shot placement. Also, the military uses ball, which is known to overpenetrate, esp in 9mm. Combine poor shot placement (lack of training) with ammo that icepicks through people, and it should be no wonder why there are failures to stop. .45 ball isn't particularly effective, either (even though I know popular "history" says otherwise). I think we really need to consider ignoring Hague and issuing combat troops some effective ammo, say 5.56 JSP perhaps, and 9mm JHP ? Maybe spend some money on giving them better tactical pistol training, too. There's much better training available on the civilian side. That may be part of the reason why security contractors (such as Blackwater) are in favor now. They have better training and can use whatever ammo they want because they're not a military unit. .45 is preferred by many people because of its' history, its' commonly asserted "stopping power" (which is no more/less than similar pistol calibers) and its' recoil characteristics. .45 can be pretty accurate and a lot of shooters prefer the recoil of a .45 to that of a 9mm or a .40 because 9mm/.40 recoil is more "sharp" and has more "snap" to it, while .45 is more of a "push", even though .45 has more recoil energy. 9mm is the better round ballistically if you were to attempt long-range shooting with a pistol because 9mm has a higher velocity/flatter trajectory, but that has nothing to do with the terminal ballistics issue or military use.

Yeah, lets go ahead and blatantly defy the geneva accords and then let the libtards on us I agree it should be about bigger better faster rounds but it's not. War is a continuation of politics by different means. It's a fact that we sadly have to live with.


Dude had been shot through his inferior vena cava, Biggest vein in the body. I've never seen anyone survive a shot to it. EMT since 2000. I've seen a lot of people shot. LOTS shot for shot a .45 does more damage. Bodies are torn into shreads better by .45 JHP than they are 9mm JHP. Bodies are also NOT ballistic gelatin, OR wet newspaper, OR trees. They are flesh of different strengths and thicknesses, and bone, and liquid and in some cases empty cavities. Given the choice between only .45 and 9mm I wouldnt worry for a second about using the excuse that if you get a 9 you can train more,
You can spend over 5 bills on a good gun but can't afford to train enough with it?

Since when is your life not worth the 3 bucks a box extra to train with the same amount of ammo?

Do you really want to say that "I'll take a 9 cause I get 15 or 17 or 18 rounds and I can shoot em more times so it does more damage"?

Again, train more and you'll only have to shoot them 2-3 times and not worry about the inevitable lawsuit that is accompanied by the headline "gun nut shoots jackass robber 17 times"

We've all heard, "if that bullet was one more millimeter to the right you'd be dead" Don't you want that millimeter covered?

Seriously, the only excuse for not shooting a .45 over something less effective is that you can't get back on target very quick with the .45 for follow up shots. That's why I don't shooter a .45, well that, and shit happens and I want more rounds. I shoot a .40. And before all you people go "99% of gunfights happen at less than 21 feet and have less than 3 rounds fired" Your right. So am I when I say that 99% of people that carry will never be involved in a gun fight. If your gonna be prepared do it right. Train like your going to war tommorrow, carry a good reliable gun like a sig, HK, or Glock, train some more. Get 10 mags and randomly pick them up and load different amounts of ammo in them and go shoot a uspsa style course and practice reloading as fast as you can. Practice clearing jams constantly. Practice all this so much you don't have to think about it when it happens, you just react.

Practice the draw, double tap, holster, draw, double tap, holster, till you see a target, decide to shoot it, and then your hand draws your eyes and hands coordinate and shoot the target without any real thought on your part. You do this, with stress added, and hit em with 2 in the chest and one in the head in less than a 1.4 or 1.5 seconds consistantly, and have a gun that you know will go bang everytime, and a bullet that inflicts the max amount of damage, add a HUGE dose of luck, and you might, just might survive the gunfight that I pray none of us ever have to get into.




Good points except, it is the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 not Geneva that states "

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

The U.S. was not one of the "Contracting Parties" of the 1899 accords but we have, with the exception of certin sniper rounds followed these accords. However, we did sign the 1907 Hauge accords that state:

"...it is especially forbidden -

To employ arms, projectiles, or material {sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

Now if you ask me what is considered unnecessary suffering, I would say being shot by anything, but I would think it would be more humane to kill someone quickly with a JHP than have them slowly bleed to death from many "Ice Pick" FMJ rounds. They are both just as dead, but who dies quicker?

I guess the only case that could be made is if they both survive the shot, then who suffers more in treatment and recovery? The whole issue is open to interpretation.


Just my $.02 and my 100th post
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:16:55 PM EDT
that's freakin' nasty bro.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:00:28 PM EDT
Yeah, but with the exception of the movie "The Blob", has anyone ever actually had to defend against a ballistic gellatin attack?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:02:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't lethal. The debate centers around how quickly it will incapacitate.



Yeah, makes sense, but have any reliable studies been done to prove/disprove just how rapidly any calibers incapacitate ? I know about Marshall and Sanow, but the accuracy of their data is controversial. Same with the Strasbourg tests. It is known that both .45 and 9mm exhibit similar performance in gelatin. i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/Bob_2002/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg



But there are better 9mm rounds out compared to what is on that graphic.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:04:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 2:05:01 PM EDT by Bob1984]

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't lethal. The debate centers around how quickly it will incapacitate.



Yeah, makes sense, but have any reliable studies been done to prove/disprove just how rapidly any calibers incapacitate ? I know about Marshall and Sanow, but the accuracy of their data is controversial. Same with the Strasbourg tests. It is known that both .45 and 9mm exhibit similar performance in gelatin. i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/Bob_2002/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg



But there are better 9mm rounds out compared to what is on that graphic.



Exactly, my point is, if that's what poor 9mm rounds do, just imagine what the really good stuff can do. The rounds, for instance, that the guy was shot in the liver with didn't even expand properly, and they still obviously penetrated enough and caused a fatality.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:04:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SSFeldjager:
Yeah, but with the exception of the movie "The Blob", has anyone ever actually had to defend against a ballistic gellatin attack?



An article got posted today about the extremely high correlation of results comparing actual wounds in tissue versus ballistic gelatin.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:06:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't lethal. The debate centers around how quickly it will incapacitate.



Yeah, makes sense, but have any reliable studies been done to prove/disprove just how rapidly any calibers incapacitate ? I know about Marshall and Sanow, but the accuracy of their data is controversial. Same with the Strasbourg tests. It is known that both .45 and 9mm exhibit similar performance in gelatin. i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/Bob_2002/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg



But there are better 9mm rounds out compared to what is on that graphic.



Exactly, my point is, if that's what poor 9mm rounds do, just imagine what the really good stuff can do. The rounds, for instance, that the guy was shot in the liver with didn't even expand properly, and they still obviously penetrated enough and caused a fatality.



I agree.

Running WInchester Ranger or something you are going to get excellent performance.

Like Bill Hackethorn says, if you choose suitable defensive ammo for your 9mm it will outperform many common/popular 45ACP loads.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:11:44 PM EDT
After reading about the 9mm loadings that are avaliable now, I am switching to 9mm. More rounds, better recoil, and cheaper to practice. I love .45, don't get me wrong, but if I can get a 9mm to perform close to a .45, cost less to practice with (allowing me a better placed shot), and carry more rounds, then I'm on board. I used to hate 9mm, but with what's avaliable now, I think I'm going to jump ship. (My house gun will stay my USP 45F, because it's just such a good house gun).
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 2:37:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't lethal. The debate centers around how quickly it will incapacitate.



Yeah, makes sense, but have any reliable studies been done to prove/disprove just how rapidly any calibers incapacitate ? I know about Marshall and Sanow, but the accuracy of their data is controversial. Same with the Strasbourg tests. It is known that both .45 and 9mm exhibit similar performance in gelatin. i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/Bob_2002/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg



But there are better 9mm rounds out compared to what is on that graphic.



Exactly, my point is, if that's what poor 9mm rounds do, just imagine what the really good stuff can do. The rounds, for instance, that the guy was shot in the liver with didn't even expand properly, and they still obviously penetrated enough and caused a fatality.



I agree.

Running WInchester Ranger or something you are going to get excellent performance.

Like Bill Hackethorn says, if you choose suitable defensive ammo for your 9mm it will outperform many common/popular 45ACP loads.




Originally Posted By fla556guy:
After reading about the 9mm loadings that are avaliable now, I am switching to 9mm. More rounds, better recoil, and cheaper to practice. I love .45, don't get me wrong, but if I can get a 9mm to perform close to a .45, cost less to practice with (allowing me a better placed shot), and carry more rounds, then I'm on board. I used to hate 9mm, but with what's avaliable now, I think I'm going to jump ship. (My house gun will stay my USP 45F, because it's just such a good house gun).



I think my point has been made
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 11:44:16 PM EDT
When it comes to 9mm performance, there is alot of ignorance and nostalgia perpetuated by the older 1911 crowd. Depending on the situation, human beings are incredibly resiliant or frail. A person could absorb multiple hits from a .45 ACP and still return fire but succomb instantly to one moderatly well placed shot from a .22 mag. Terminal ballistics isn't just about gelatin performance or velocity/energy. Testing ammo in ballistic gel is a good indication of whether the round will exibit a minimal level of performance suitible for use in the field. Since gelatin isn't an exact

replica of human tissue, its a rough approximation. Right now, its the best tool we have to gauge the effectiveness of ammuntiton and I don't have a better suggestion. Supposing all these facts about terminal ballistics based on how a round or caliber does in gelatin is foolish and shortsided.
Handguns are weapons of compromise. Certainly, extremely lethal and capable pistol bullets exist but at the expense of great recoil, weight and minimal ammo capacity. Provided that your caliber of choice offers a minimal level of penetration, consistant with FBI and IWBA reccomendations, and reliable and consistant expansion, it should suffice as a defensive pistol caliber. Shot

placement is the most crucial factor in terminal ballistics. Shot placement negates the question of caliber. Since this is the most important factor/variable in terminal ballistics, it makes sense to choose a weapon that can be fired accurately and can deliver follow up shots with the same accuracy as the first shot. Even with training, the "bark" of a 10mm or .45+P can be difficult to manage. The recoil caused by these larger cartridges, especially in smaller packages, can make rapid follow up shots difficult or even impossible for the average shooter. I am sure someone will say practice, practice, practice....well, if you are like me and have a job and a pretty girlfriend, you won't have all the time in the world to devote to defensive pistol training. I guess my point is, choosing a larger caliber isn't guaranteed to be more effective against a human target. When

shooting people, there are no guaranties. Its not like in the movies where one shot causes the bad guy to die instantly. A gunfight, will be just that...a fight. Multiple shots are likely to be exchanged. You cant count on a singular shot to stop an opponent in real world scenarios. You want the best ballance of firepower, reduced recoil, reduced weight and accuracy and the 9mm offers all of the above. Selecting the proper defensive ammo is critical in all calibers, especially the 9mm. The best choices are the +P 125 grain bullets and the 147grain sub-sonic's. Which is best, I couldn't tell you....no one can. They both are proven effective in testing, so its a matter of personal preference. I use BH 124grn +P Gold Dots, works for me.....Bottom line, no pistol caliber is

guaranteed to give you a one shot stop. Going up in caliber requires more practice/training and you arent necessarily getting a more effective weapon. Should you have to make multiple rapid hits, a G20 should prove less effective. 9mm and corresponding weapons offer the best balance of lethality, minimal recoil and magazine capacity. Anyone who says 9mm are for pansies is clearly ignorant and is not familiar with the appropriate research.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 2:05:22 PM EDT
I was watching some autopsy show earlier. One hardball .45 killed a guy. High left side shot. Over the Aorta. Bullet missed. Cavity got it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:16:13 PM EDT
This image always looks like vaginas to me

STOP POSTING IT

Top Top