Re: [JohnRich] Freefalling Bullets

[billvon 3,120]

>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.

Guns - as in firearms - are designed to kill. That's why they have small projectiles that are launched at a speed that can penetrate flesh.

If you are talking about paintball, nail and scanner guns, and are claiming that _they_ are not designed to kill, then I agree. But if that's the case, then this argument has become one of those incredibly dumb semantic arguments, and I will leave you to it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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.

The same can be said for cars. They aren't meant to kill, but they can and do if misused. Heck, cars kill 3.5 times more people each year than guns. So, cars are no different from custom target-shooting guns. Just because they possess the capability to kill if misused, doesn't mean that they are created for that purpose, or intended to be used for that purpose. Comprende, Senor?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Guns - as in firearms - are designed to kill. That's why they have small projectiles that are launched at a speed that can penetrate flesh.

Wrong. Repeat of speech #28:

Military rifles are designed to kill, but they are used by soldiers in war, where killing is justified.

Civilian rifles take many different forms, just a few of which are:

- Hunting rifles, designed to kill, yes, but to kill animals during the

legal activity of hunting.

- Skeet and Trap shotguns, designed only to shoot clay targets.

- Target rifles, designed to shoot targets.  The manufacturer certainly

doesn't market them to kill people.

- Civilian copies of military rifles, like the AR-15 and M1A are used

in high-power rifle competitions all across the country every 

weekend.

- .22 rimfire guns, used for cheap fun plinking.  Not considered for

use against people because of the small bullet and powder charge.

- Handguns, used for both target shooting and self-defense.  Self-

defense shooting is justifiable under the law.

- BB guns, used for plinking only.  You would have a hard time killing

anyone with a BB gun.

My AR-15 was purchased for participation in high-power rifle competition. The only thing it has ever shot is paper targets. I have no plans to ever shoot any people with it. My AR-15 shooting is for the joy of shooting targets, period, and that is a purpose and a sport unto itself, without any other motive. If I need to use deadly force to defend myself, it will be with a handgun which is kept loaded and ready.

There are many types of guns, just as there are many types of golf clubs, and they serve many different purposes. You wouldn't try to putt with a sand wedge, nor would a shooter try and hit a target at 600 yards with a .22 handgun. Not all guns are designed to kill. And those that are, are intended for legitimate self-defense only.

Regardless of reason for the original invention of the firearm, they have since evolved into many other forms, most of which are NOT designed to kill.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Guns - as in firearms - are designed to kill. That's why they have small projectiles that are launched at a speed that can penetrate flesh.

Wrong. Repeat of speech #29:

A good analogy in that regard is; computers. The very first computer, called ENIAC, was used by the Army to compute ballistic trajectories for artillery shells. In other words, "to kill". So computers were designed to help make killing efficient.

"Developed under the supervision of the Ordnance Department, United States Army"
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/46eniac-report/

"the ENIAC computer, the first large-scale general-purpose electronic computer. Built at the University of Pennsylvania's Moore School of Electrical Engineering, ENIAC is an acronym for 'Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer,' but its birth lay in World War II as a classified military project known only as Project PX."
http://www.library.upenn.edu/special/gallery/mauchly/jwmintro.html

Yep, computers were designed to kill. Yet since then, computers have gone on to evolve into many other different purposes. Shall we stick to the "designed to kill" mantra, and say that because of that, we're doing something evil by using computers to talk to each other right now? No! What we should do is recognize that regardless of what the first computer did, we're doing something entirely different with them now, which is completely harmless, and even beneficial.

So even if guns were originally designed to kill in warfare, they have evolved to be used for many other things now. These include lawful self-defense and sport, and there is nothing evil about those at all.

So, anyone who says today that all guns are designed to kill because of their original motivation for creation, is an idiot. It is no more true than someone claiming that all computers are designed to kill, because of their original motivation for creation.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Guns - as in firearms - are designed to kill. That's why they have small projectiles that are launched at a speed that can penetrate flesh.

Wrong. Repeat of speech #29:

A good analogy in that regard is; computers. The very first computer, called ENIAC, was used by the Army to compute ballistic trajectories for artillery shells. In other words, "to kill". So computers were designed to help make killing efficient.

"Developed under the supervision of the Ordnance Department, United States Army"
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/46eniac-report/

"the ENIAC computer, the first large-scale general-purpose electronic computer. Built at the University of Pennsylvania's Moore School of Electrical Engineering, ENIAC is an acronym for 'Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer,' but its birth lay in World War II as a classified military project known only as Project PX."
http://www.library.upenn.edu/special/gallery/mauchly/jwmintro.html

Yep, computers were designed to kill. Yet since then, computers have gone on to evolve into many other different purposes. Shall we stick to the "designed to kill" mantra, and say that because of that, we're doing something evil by using computers to talk to each other right now? No! What we should do is recognize that regardless of what the first computer did, we're doing something entirely different with them now, which is completely harmless, and even beneficial.

So even if guns were originally designed to kill in warfare, they have evolved to be used for many other things now. These include lawful self-defense and sport, and there is nothing evil about those at all.

So, anyone who says today that all guns are designed to kill because of their original motivation for creation, is an idiot. It is no more true that someone claiming that all computers are designed to kill, because of their original motivation for creation.

Wrong, Eniac was not the first computer, nor even the first electronic computer. Common misconception.

Guns, of course, ARE killing machines. Just because some have become optimized for other purposes, such as shooting surrogate targets such as clays or paper targets, doesn't in any way alter the fact that guns ARE killing machines.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

we were going into the fields for pheasants... Then the hailstones of this idiots shotgun lashed down my hat leaving dozens of small holes in it, leaving dozens of blue, partially bloody marks on my head, my face, my shoulders... Before this instructiv event, I did not spent too much time thinking about the power falling pellets or bullets still have.

Bird shot in freefall would not do that - it wouldn't have the velocity. You had to have been hit with shot that had a somewhat horizontal trajectory and was still under the power of the cartridge. Do you understand the difference?

Since you believe that all guns are designed to kill, and you yourself are a gun owner and shooter, doesn't that make you a "killer" by your own definition?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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.

Hunting is "killing", nonetheless, but a legal form of killing. The point is, just because bows and arrows were originally invented "to kill", doesn't mean that everyone who practices with a bow today intends to kill something with it. No, instead, many bowmen practice simply for the pleasure of mastering a difficult task that requires skill, coordination and concentration. Many of them have no ulterior motive of becoming proficient in order to go into the field to hunt, or to use them to kill people. You wouldn't suggest that Olympic archers are practicing to be silent assassins, would you? Archery is a sport unto itself. And many guns serve the same purpose. Marksmen don't necessarily practice because they want to be good at killing people or animals. They simply enjoy the challenge of target shooting, and that too is a sport unto itself.

To say that all guns are designed to kill, and that all marksmen are practicing to kill, is WRONG.

[billvon 3,120]

You seem to have a very strong personal stake in believing guns are not designed to be lethal weapons. Since it doesn't matter to me what you believe on the subject, I won't try to change your mind. Just a note on something else you said:

>the ENIAC computer, the first large-scale general-purpose electronic computer . . . (in 1946)

The first programmable computer ever designed was the Babbage Engine in 1822, to generate mathematical tables.

The first electronic computer built was the Z1, designed by Konrad Zuse in 1938. It ran programs from punched tape and was designed to do basic math. In 1941 he designed and built the Z3, which was the world's first Turing Machine (i.e. fully programmable computer that could make internal decisions.) It was constructed of old telephone relays.

In 1939, John Atanasoff and Clifford Berry (both at Iowa State) created the first version of the ABC (Atanasoff-Berry Computer). It was used for agronomy research. It used vacuum tubes (rather than mechanical switches) to switch voltages, it used binary digits to represent numbers, and it made use of the Harvard architecture in which program and data memory are separated.

ENIAC wasn't close to being "the first computer." It was merely a very big one.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Bird shot in freefall would not do that - it wouldn't have the velocity. You had to have been hit with shot that had a somewhat horizonatal trajectory and was still under the power of the shot cartridge. Do you understand the difference?

Tststs, John, do not doubt my intelligence, please! You don't need to pull the macho card as there's a woman playing in same yard

Quote

Since you believe that all guns are designed to kill, and you yourself are a gun owner and shooter, doesn't that make you a "killer" by your own definition?

Yes. An animal killer. If you like that definition. I proudly confess I've got the license to kill predefined animals in predifined areas. Costs me a s*** load of money, BTW


There's just a small difference to your definition on weapons' determination: I do not go into my areas and kill these animals with my car. My car is not designed to kill anyone, like a gun is. It's designed to bring me w/in shortest time into my hunting area! where sometimes pellets are falling ON my head.....

Back to TOP: I love the thread title "Freefalling Bullets", reminds me somehow on skydiving - how come?

Christel

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Amazon 7]

Quote

ENIAC wasn't close to being "the first computer." It was merely a very big one.

Interesting that you are talkiingabout ENIAC... it was evil and was used to help kill people.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC



ENIAC, short for Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, was the first large-scale, electronic, digital computer capable of being reprogrammed to solve a full range of computing problems[1], although earlier computers had been built with some of these properties. ENIAC was designed and built to calculate artillery firing tables for the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory. The first problems run on the ENIAC however, were related to the design of the hydrogen bomb.

[downwardspiral 0]

Last friday night I had a "run in" with three white guys. Fortunately, I had a Glock 17 with 50 rounds of 9mm on me. Strangely, each one wore the same t-shirt bearing a 10 in the center surrounded several 5's. Also there was an erie darkness about em. Even tho they were unarmed I proceeded to distribute the 50 rounds between em at high velocities. HAHA! Those silhoette #4 motherfuckers will never fuck with me again.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[craddock 0]

This thread was about freefalling bullets, not about getting shot!! You were shot!!

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

This thread was about freefalling bullets, not about getting shot!! You were shot!!

Why did you erase your last words? I do NOT understand, as it seems, in your post is missing something, an end, some sense or so.... - go back and read the very first post, man - at least the last 2 sentences.

BTW: I still feel well alive. Thx for wishing me well.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>the ENIAC computer, the first large-scale general-purpose electronic computer . . . blah blah blah ... ENIAC wasn't close to being "the first computer." It was merely a very big one.

Off topic. I would think a moderator would know better than to interject this kind of irrelevant stuff. Go start your own thread.

Note how you ignored the qualifiers "first large-scale general purpose electronic computer". You're pretty good at setting up your own strawman arguments and then knocking them down, even to include B2 bombers! It's just too bad that no one is actually arguing the points upon which you are pretending to prevail.

I also noted how you didn't address my analogy at all, comparing the original intent of Eniac, with the original intent of firearms, and how that shouldn't be used to characterize all of those items today. Perhaps you bypassed that one because you have a much tougher time trying to de-bunk it. Yeah, it's much easier to set up your own strawmen and knock 'em down.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Bird shot in freefall would not do that - it wouldn't have the velocity. You had to have been hit with shot that had a somewhat horizonatal trajectory and was still under the power of the shot cartridge. Do you understand the difference?

Tststs, John, do not doubt my intelligence, please! You don't need to pull the macho card as there's a woman playing in same yard

First of all, you need to be more clear about these bird-shot pellets that hit you. Are you claiming that they were freefalling straight down onto your hat and left those kinds of marks on you? Or are you admitting that they had horizontal velocity from the shotgun?

Second, there is nothing "macho" about my message. It is a simple statement of physics and facts, and a request for clarification from you, which you still haven't provided.

I don't want you to leave people with the impression that freefalling bird-shot pellets can penetrate fabric and leave those kinds of injuries, because they can't.

So why don't you just answer the question instead of playing your games about insults to your intelligence and machoism.

Quote

Quote

Since you believe that all guns are designed to kill, and you yourself are a gun owner and shooter, doesn't that make you a "killer" by your own definition?

Yes. An animal killer.

So being a "killer" is not necessarily an evil thing then. When someone says that a gun is "designed to kill", and it's designed to kill animals in legal hunting sport, there should be no negative connotation attached to that statement. Correct?

Quote

There's just a small difference to your definition on weapons' determination: I do not go into my areas and kill these animals with my car. My car is not designed to kill anyone, like a gun is.

I can see that you are having difficulty keeping up with the line of the argument. The mention of cars came about because someone was claiming that guns are designed to kill simply because they possess that capability if misused. Likewise, cars possess the ability to kill if misused. I wasn't arguing that cars are a weapon. I was arguing that just because something can kill you, doesn't mean that it was designed for that purpose.

Do try and keep up.

[billvon 3,120]

>I would think a moderator would know better than to interject this kind of irrelevant stuff.

Uh, John - you posted the example. I was just pointing out that you were incorrect. If you would like to start your own thread on the purposes of Eniac feel free.

>comparing the original intent of Eniac . . . .

Eniac was indeed the first large military computer. I will readily acknowledge that all large military computers are used for purposes that involve killing people (or planning to.)

Eniac was NOT the first programmable computer, or the first electronic computer, or the first Turing Machine. Which makes sense, since computers in general are not intended to kill people.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>I would think a moderator would know better than to interject
> this kind of irrelevant stuff.

Uh, John - you posted the example. I was just pointing out that you were incorrect.

I see that you are having trouble maintaining the line of argument too, just like cristelsabine. Please see my response to her. It wasn't about computers, it was about applying the original design intent to the way the objects are used decades later.

Quote

Eniac was indeed the first large military computer. I will readily acknowledge that all large military computers are used for purposes that involve killing people (or planning to.)

Nope. Many of them are used for quite ordinary business purposes, like supply, payroll, personnel, maintenance and so on, just like any big corporation that is not involved in killing the enemy.

Quote

...computers in general are not intended to kill people.

And many guns aren't either. Can you put aside your ego long enough to acknowledge that simple fact?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

ENIAC was designed and built to calculate artillery firing tables for the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory. The first problems run on the ENIAC however, were related to the design of the hydrogen bomb.

kallend: Well that proves it - computers, of course, ARE killing machines. Just because some have become optimized for other purposes, such as talking on blogs, doesn't in any way alter the fact that computers ARE killing machines.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>the ENIAC computer, the first large-scale general-purpose electronic computer . . . blah blah blah ... ENIAC wasn't close to being "the first computer." It was merely a very big one.

Off topic. I would think a moderator would know better than to interject this kind of irrelevant stuff. Go start your own thread.

Note how you ignored the qualifiers "first large-scale general purpose electronic computer". You're pretty good at setting up your own strawman arguments and then knocking them down, even to include B2 bombers! It's just too bad that no one is actually arguing the points upon which you are pretending to prevail.

"Large scale" is meaningless - large scale compared to what? Eniac had only a tiny fraction of the power of my pocket programmable calculator. Eniac wasn't the first, and it wasn't the first "general purpose" either.

Guns ARE killing machines, even if you don't use yours for that purpose. You are being disingenuous.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>Please see my response to her. It wasn't about computers . . .

Hmm. Why'd you bring them up then?

>Can you put aside your ego long enough to acknowledge that simple fact?

I've got no ego riding on this; none of my ego is tied up in my gun collection. Additionally, I could care less whether you think guns are designed to be deadly weapons.

But a few questions for you, anyway:

If you were to consider a firearm which, through design, could not propel a projectile faster than about 200 feet per second - would you consider that a usable gun?

If you looked at a firearm that would not deliver a projectile in a straight line - it diverged at random through an arc of about 30 degrees - would you consider that a usable gun?

[Stumpy 284]

How does a computer kill someone? its not designed to do that. What it did do, is do lots of sums to help someone aim a very big gun more accurately. To kill people. like it was designed for.

Your example is bunkum.

I guess if you dropped it on someone from high enough then you could kill someone with it, but there are much more effective weapons designed for the purpose. Like guns

geez

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[azdiver 0]

you are totally off the mark, if you go back and read my original post in this thread my comment was for the pure pourpose of making a piont about gun safety. if you havent taken one yet maybe you need to check into taking a firearms safety course im sure the instructor of the course would love to debate you on this subject.

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

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Guns - as in firearms - are designed to kill. That's why they have small projectiles that are launched at a speed that can penetrate flesh.

Wrong. Repeat of speech #28:

Military rifles are designed to kill, but they are used by soldiers in war, where killing is justified.

Civilian rifles take many different forms, just a few of which are:

- Hunting rifles, designed to kill, yes, but to kill animals during the

legal activity of hunting.

- Skeet and Trap shotguns, designed only to shoot clay targets.

- Target rifles, designed to shoot targets.  The manufacturer certainly

doesn't market them to kill people.

- Civilian copies of military rifles, like the AR-15 and M1A are used

in high-power rifle competitions all across the country every 

weekend.

- .22 rimfire guns, used for cheap fun plinking.  Not considered for

use against people because of the small bullet and powder charge.

- Handguns, used for both target shooting and self-defense.  Self-

defense shooting is justifiable under the law.

- BB guns, used for plinking only.  You would have a hard time killing

anyone with a BB gun.

My AR-15 was purchased for participation in high-power rifle competition. The only thing it has ever shot is paper targets. I have no plans to ever shoot any people with it. My AR-15 shooting is for the joy of shooting targets, period, and that is a purpose and a sport unto itself, without any other motive. If I need to use deadly force to defend myself, it will be with a handgun which is kept loaded and ready.

There are many types of guns, just as there are many types of golf clubs, and they serve many different purposes. You wouldn't try to putt with a sand wedge, nor would a shooter try and hit a target at 600 yards with a .22 handgun. Not all guns are designed to kill. And those that are, are intended for legitimate self-defense only.

Regardless of reason for the original invention of the firearm, they have since evolved into many other forms, most of which are NOT designed to kill.

I'll SHOUT HERE AS YOU'VE CLEARLY GOT YOU HEAD IN THE SAND! IF A 'BAD GUY' SHOOTS ME WITH A 'PLINKING' .22 IN THE HEAD I'LL BE JUST AS DEAD AS IF HE USED A AK74! THEY'RE NOT CALLED WEAPONS FOR ANYOTHER REASON THAN THATS WHAT THEY ARE JOHN!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

ENIAC was designed and built to calculate artillery firing tables for the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory. The first problems run on the ENIAC however, were related to the design of the hydrogen bomb.

kallend: Well that proves it - computers, of course, ARE killing machines. Just because some have become optimized for other purposes, such as talking on blogs, doesn't in any way alter the fact that computers ARE killing machines.

Actually you might be correct, I've got a Dell and the bloody thing could burst into flames at any time!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you were to consider a firearm which, through design, could not propel a projectile faster than about 200 feet per second - would you consider that a usable gun?

If you looked at a firearm that would not deliver a projectile in a straight line - it diverged at random through an arc of about 30 degrees - would you consider that a usable gun?

Not sure wtf the point was, but these specs sound like a paintball gun.