Re: [JohnRich] Freefalling Bullets

[azdiver 0]

wasnt saying that the recoil would be more by shooting it straight up i was refering to the body position you would have to be in to do it safely. with some of the guns i have shot i would never try to hold it out in front of me with the it pointing straight up seen some bad shit with people doing stupid shit with guns.if everyone would remember one key thing about guns everyone would be safer. they are desinged to do one thing and one thing only KILL. not everyone uses them for that but thats what they are made to do.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[JeepDiver 0]

I haven't bothered to read this entire thread. I will relate what I know firsthand.

For a couple years I managed a business which was in a very bad neighborhood. Several times throughout the years we found 9mm or 10mm pistol rounds which had struck the 26 acres of paved parking areas. These bullets were barely distorted from the impact with a paved parking area. They had been fired from somewhere else and had struck in downward trejectory.

I doubt there was enough force left to serously hurt anyone, perhaps a bad bruise or a direct impact to a person head would have inflicted serious injury.

[airtwardo 7]

they are desinged to do one thing and one thing only KILL. not everyone uses them for that but thats what they are made to do.


***

Hop aboard everyone...NEXT STOP... S.C.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

if everyone would remember one key thing about guns everyone would be safer. they are desinged to do one thing and one thing only KILL. not everyone uses them for that but thats what they are made to do.

Wrong. They're made to shoot bullets. What people use them for to shoot at, is up to the person holding the gun. Mine only shoot holes into paper targets. And there are plenty of guns designed specifically for target shooting, not for self defense or hunting. And both self defense and hunting are legal, justifiable forms of killing.

For someone who claims to be a competition shooter, I would think that you would have realized this by now. There's a lot of highly specialized rifles in that field, none of which are designed for killing.

I participated in a 1,000-yard match yesterday. I don't think any of the rifles present that day were designed for killing.

So I guess then, that according to you and christelsabine, since we didn't kill anything with our rifles, we must have been mis-using them from their intended purpose?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

I don't think any of the rifles present that day were designed for killing.

Camel crap. Every single gun is designed to kill (that's the purpose) - or to STOP at least another person/or an animal? (which, in my eyes just is an alibi). In fact, it's a killing tool. Cover it with honey and sugar, it remains a killing tool.

Guns of every kind were not created just to make funny noise at New Year's eve. They're made to kill. Plain and simple.

Holy Moses, can't believe you, dear JR, still are riding same old plea

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Camel crap. Every single gun is designed to kill (that's the purpose) - or to STOP at least another person/or an animal? (which, in my eyes just is an alibi). In fact, it's a killing tool. Cover it with honey and sugar, it remains a killing tool.

Guns of every kind were not created just to make funny noise at New Year's eve. They're made to kill. Plain and simple.

For once I have to disagree here. John is right ( acccckkkk)

I have some that are designed just for killing paper targets... and they really are not suitable for much else.. for various reasons. And none of that paper is covered with Honey

There are many people in many countries who compete with rifles in this sport.. personally I love killing paper this way..

I have other weapons I use for huntng... and others that can oly be described as for personal/home defence. some of them qare my families heirlooms going back... way back into our family history on this continent....they are part of our heritage... and part of that is matching your skill against that of others..... and killing paper at long range...that is just a reality.

[masterrig 1]

I can see and appreciate your side of this heated debate. Personally, I feel that guns came about for many reasons. I deeply feel, that innocent gun is just that. It is the intent of the person who picks it up as to it's end use.


Chuck

[craddock 0]

Some of the more expensive guns I have ever held are not designed for killing. Well mabey some were for killing clay targets.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Camel crap. Every single gun is designed to kill (that's the purpose) - or to STOP at least another person/or an animal? (which, in my eyes just is an alibi). In fact, it's a killing tool. Cover it with honey and sugar, it remains a killing tool.

Guns of every kind were not created just to make funny noise at New Year's eve. They're made to kill. Plain and simple.

For once I have to disagree here. John is right ( acccckkkk)

Me too

I completely forgot about the dangerous water pistols my son used to play with! You're fully right. There are weapons just to be used for fun purposes - I forgot about them, sorry!

You know, I still have one or two to show our evil cats which couch is NOT a scratching post - they do respect it if I shoot at them with water, of course - and not over a distance of more than 1000 yards

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mr2mk1g 10]

Cripes - lets not get bogged down in silly semantics.

Guns were invented to kill people, pure and simple. The hand gonne was invented as a nice addition to an army's siege equipment; despite its obvious drawbacks when compared to the longbow or crossbow.

Shortly thereafter, the matchlock musket was invented and popularized because peasants with 2 days training could achieve the kind of kills that would take a longbow man years of practice... that and they could shoot through a French knight's breast plate, (c'mon – we can at least unite in our hatred of the French).

Fast forward a few hundred years and we have a large number of weapons which were invented to kill people more efficiently than the version that went before them... however they are also invented for many other reasons - to shoot snipes, (water birds), for example - huge great guns actually built into the body of small boats, or forward even further - shoot as accurately as possible even after the shooter has just finished skiing cross-country as fast as they can.

Now lets look at another term - "designed" - pretty similar to "invented", though subtally distinct: firearms today are designed to do many other things than to kill. Some are just cool looking, or fun to shoot, or extremely accurate etc etc. Not all sure, but it would certainly be true to say that many are designed to be cool/fun/accurate etc. Hell, to rely on semantics, some guns are designed to disable military vehicles - not necessarily to kill their occupants... they just do that coincidentally.

It's probably still true to say however that the majority of firearms manufactured today are designed to kill. Be it from a military stand point, (though technically this would usually be to wound - the NATO M855 round, (as used by the M16 et al), for example is specifically designed not to kill but only to wound), or for personal or home security, law enforcement use etc. All could be put to down to being designed to kill/cause serious injuries.

Hell, most range guns which are owned simply because they are fun/accurate/cool were designed to kill but then found their niche as fun/accurate/cool guns used by the average Joe to do nothing but put holes in paper targets.

Their end use however doesn't necessarily mean they weren't originally designed to kill... but then that would just be arguing about semantics.

Equally, the fact that they were originally designed to kill doesn't necessarily mean there were actually manufactured, (our final term), to do so... but again, this is semantics.

Most guns are probably manufactured to sit in a draw or gun-rack and be practiced with occasionally, polished less occasionally but never actually used in anger... but once again - this is just semantics.

Let's not start a silly argument about whether or not guns are designed to kill or merely to accelerate a projectile. They are not all designed to kill - most are, but not all, for sure. And yes, they are all designed to accelerate projectiles; in just the same way as cars are designed to accelerate human beings... but I doubt many people would say the Ford F-150 was a brilliant accelerator-of-people device... they probably simply prefer to drive one.

I suspect at the heart of this thread we'd simply see a simple misunderstanding based on errors creeping in through translation.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Never let your opinion of a person or their message cloud your judgemet, are all bow and arrows meant only to kill?

Slingshot?

Yoyo?

Blowgun?

A rock?

[billvon 3,116]

>are all bow and arrows meant only to kill?

I don't think anyone has said that guns are meant _only_ to kill. As mentioned above, that's what they were _originally_ developed to do, and many guns still serve that primary purpose. (Ask yourself what the oft-described term 'stopping power' means.)

Of course, many people practice with them on inanimate targets, which is fine. But that doesn't change their intent, any more than training flights (or airshow flights, or even an evacuation mission) with a B-2 bomber makes it a trainer or a transport and not a bomber.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't think anyone has said that guns are meant _only_ to kill... that's what they were _originally_ developed to do... many people practice with them on inanimate targets... But that doesn't change their intent...

Repeat speech #26:

Just because guns were invented "to kill" hundreds of years ago, does not mean that we are forever locked-in to doing only that same thing for which they were originally designed. Since that time, firearms have evolved to become many other things; such as for many forms of sport shooting and for lawful self defense. To continue to view them as having the sole purpose of killing is incredibly incorrect. We are not forever bound to use an object for the same reason for which it was originally invented. Nor would it be correct to forever refer to it in that manner.

For example, bows and arrows were originally invented for the purpose of killing, yet today archery is a popular sport unto itself, without any aspect of killing in the practice.

Furthermore, to find true original intent, you must go back in time even further. Then you'll find that the first use of gunpowder was by the Chinese to shoot pretty fireworks into the sky, which weren't designed to kill anyone. So those who want to advocate this "original intent" theory, should then be saying that guns are designed to shoot pretty fireworks. I'm sure everyone will agree that this is a ludicrous comparison. It's also just as ludicrous as the contention that guns today are all designed and manufactured for the express purpose of killing.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Never let your opinion of a person or their message cloud your judgemet, are all bow and arrows meant only to kill?

What?!?

On what else should I justify my opinion of a person if not on the message itself (at least on an internet board) ?

And yes, bows and arrows originally were designed to kill. Or what do you think they're made for: to train your upper arm muscles?

Perhaps there is an exception: Darts in British pubs!! They're invented to start a proper brawl

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,116]

>To continue to view them as having the sole purpose of killing is incredibly incorrect.

I'll try bold this time to see if that helps:

No one has said that guns are meant _only_ to kill.

>Then you'll find that the first use of gunpowder was by the
>Chinese to shoot pretty fireworks into the sky, which weren't
>designed to kill anyone.

Yes. The development of gunpowder was initially meant for fireworks. The development of GUNS was a military one, to allow more efficient killing of people. Guns do not equal gunpowder.

This argument is as dumb as one claiming a B-2 isn't _really_ a bomber, because someone who works on them doesn't want to see himself as 'working in the defense industry.'

[mr2mk1g 10]

Consider the following to be a demonstration of the futility of arguing about semanticts.

Quote

bows and arrows were originally invented for the purpose of killing

kinda... they were almost cetainly invented for hunting animals for food, which I'm sure would be considered, for the purposes of this thread, to be entirely distinct from the killing of people.

Quote

the first use of gunpowder was by the Chinese to shoot pretty fireworks

Which of course has absolutely zip to do with modern firearms, which for C100 years have used cordite... a chemical whose smokeless and uniform burn qualities caused it to be specifically invented for use in military firearms... which are almost universally and specifically designed for use in killing, (or wounding), people.




As I said though... all of this is simply a demonstration in the art of argument... this thread is little but a pointless discussion on the minute definitions of different English words.

It has very little to do with the actual ethical efficacy of modern firearms.

[azdiver 0]

i do know that there are a lot of guns out there modified to fit a pourpous, comp shooting has a lot of guns modified to suit that sport. but that doesnt take away their lethality, most of the times adds to it. i havent seen a real gun that cant kill someone, seen amunition but not a gun. ive shot a lot guns and thousands of rounds of ammo and never killed a thing while doing so. but every gun i shot will kill if used for that manner.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

No one has said that guns are meant _only_ to kill.

Haven't they?

Quote

Camel crap. Every single gun is designed to kill (that's the purpose) - or to STOP at least another person/or an animal? (which, in my eyes just is an alibi). In fact, it's a killing tool. Cover it with honey and sugar, it remains a killing tool.

Guns of every kind were not created just to make funny noise at New Year's eve. They're made to kill. Plain and simple.

Derek

[billvon 3,116]

>Haven't they?

They are designed to be able to kill. That doesn't mean that's their only purpose.

Again, a B-2 is a bomber, but that doesn't mean it can't carry relief supplies to a disaster area if needed.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Again, a B-2 is a bomber, but that doesn't mean it can't carry relief supplies to a disaster area if needed.

Right, but that is not what christel said. Using the B-2 analogy, what she said is all aircraft designed to kill, that is what they are for. That is a half-truth at best.

That paints a false impression of aircraft/guns. Make them sound sinister and evil.

Derek

[rickjump1 0]

My Glock does not look sinister and evil. It looks more like a staple gun. Of course in the wrong hands, a staple gun could be sinister and evil.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kbordson 8]

Not to hijack a thread of emotion and ego in the speakers corner... but getting back to the title of the topic:

Freefalling Bullets and the debate surrounding that

Quote

In 1920 the U.S. Army Ordnance conducted a series of experiments to try and determine the velocity of falling bullets. The tests were performed from a platform in the middle of a lake near Miami, Florida. The platform was ten feet square and a thin sheet of armor plate was placed over the men firing the gun. The gun was held in a fixture that would allow the gun to be adjusted to bring the shots close to the platform. It was surmised that the sound of the falling bullets could be heard when they hit the water or the platform. They fired .30 caliber, 150 gr., Spitzer point bullets, at a velocity of 2,700 f.p.s. Using the bullet ballistic coefficient and elapsed time from firing until the bullet struck the water, they calculated that the bullet traveled 9,000 feet in 18 seconds and fell to earth in 31 seconds for a total time of 49 seconds.

As a comparison, the .30 caliber bullet fired in a vacuum at 2,700 f.p.s. would rise nearly 21.5 miles and require 84 seconds to make the ascent and another 84 seconds to make its descent. It would return with the same velocity that it left the gun. This gives you some idea of what air resistance or drag does to a bullet in flight.

Wind can have a dramatic effect on where a vertically fired bullet lands. A 5 mile per hour wind will displace the 150 gr. bullet about 365 ft based on the time it takes the bullet to make the round trip to earth. In addition the wind at ground level may be blowing in an entirely different direction than it is at 9,000 feet. It is no wonder that it is so difficult to determine where a falling bullet will land.

Out of the more than 500 shots fired from the test platform only 4 falling bullets struck the platform and one fell in the boat near the platform. One of the bullets striking the platform left a 1/16 inch deep mark in the soft pine board. The bullet struck base first.

Based on the results of these tests it was concluded that the bullet return velocity was about 300 f.p.s. For the 150 gr. bullet this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Earlier the Army had determined that, on the average, it required 60 foot pounds of energy to produce a disabling wound. Based on this information, a falling 150 gr. service bullet would not be lethal, although it could produce a serious wound.

Reference

But even if it might not produce a lethal wound, shoot safe and know your backstop.

(and back to the emotion and ego - Guns are evil, Knives are evil, Fricken Laser beams are evil, baseball bats / tire irons / bricks / power drills / rocks / things that weigh as much as a duck .... or objects are neither evil nor good, but PEOPLE that do horrid things are evil. You decide.)

[warpedskydiver 0]

Well said!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

(and back to the emotion and ego - Guns are evil, Knives are evil, Fricken Laser beams are evil, baseball bats / tire irons / bricks / power drills / rocks / things that weigh as much as a duck .... or objects are neither evil nor good, but PEOPLE that do horrid things are evil. You decide.)

I agree with you, but it really has nothing to do with the pro or anti gun argument. Many "objects" have been banned or severly limited because they are bad for people or society.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Reference

Wow. What an interesting read - and interesting thread.

3 yrs ago, we were going into the fields for pheasants in Alsace/France. We took our places around a small forest with many birds inside. A kind fellow hunter from the other side of that small peace of wood was shooting on every wing he saw, even it still was walking like pheasants sometimes do to escape.

Then the hailstones of this idiots shotgun lashed down my loden hat, loden coat - leaving dozens of small holes in it, leaving dozens of blue, partially bloody marks on my head, my face, my shoulders - for weeks! That did hurt like hell! Before this instructiv event, I did not spent too much time thinking about the power falling pellets or bullets still have.

Anyhow, now I can see/feel the sunshine trough this hat and have a built-in cooling-system, not that bad!

Christel

dudeist skydiver # 3105