Re: [JohnRich] Freefalling Bullets

[kbordson 8]

Why vilify an object so viciously? Is it fear? Ignornace? Hate? What emotion drives one to accuse an OBJECT of evil nature?

Yet, you do not scream "people are born to kill." Not because they don't, rather because you might recognize that it's not the intent of an infant to commit evil. The infant does not have the knowledge or ability to commit evil. Nor does the gun.

"All firearms are designed to kill." Wrong.

Designs are made real by blueprints. Nowhere on this Blueprint or this one or even this one does it say "kill." In fact, it just has parts and assembly. So the blueprints don't support your argument.

Or maybe you're looking at the fancy names that are given: "Assault Rifle" that the press loves to banter about. OK - but then you have to accept "Survival Rifle" as a true title as well. Again proving that not all firearms are designed to kill. Some are designed to survive. So now you argue for the sake of saving face "Flip side of the same coin"? Maybe. But the intent of the rifle is to survive. If that is done through killing, then that is a secondary action.

Lets look at those who designed guns. For if guns are evil, then surely the designers are evil as well.
Leonardo da Vinci
Or maybe those that researched the physics and kinetic energy of the firearm
Coriolis

or maybe just man. I think to be evil, INTENT to harm is critical. Objects have no intent. Man does. Man has the capability to be evil. Even before guns, before knives, before tools, man could kill. Were the tools designed to assist with life or death.... that's only for man to debate.

Or maybe it's just easier to be lazy and spout that "GUNS ARE EVIL" so that your argument seems as educated as any of the sheep.

(ps. my use of the term "man" above includes both sexes of the species)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Why vilify an object so viciously? Is it fear? Ignornace? Hate? What emotion drives one to accuse an OBJECT of evil nature?

You should ask your whole society that. They have been following GW like sheep because of vilified objects. WMD, Mushroom Clouds, Nuclear Bombs, Liquids, Vaseline, Hair Gel the list goes on.....

Quote

"All firearms are designed to kill." Wrong.

Semantics, when you change "are" to "were" then the sentence is 100% correct.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Why vilify an object so viciously? Is it fear? Ignornace? Hate? What emotion drives one to accuse an OBJECT of evil nature?

You should ask your whole society that. They have been following GW like sheep because of vilified objects. WMD, Mushroom Clouds, Nuclear Bombs, Liquids, Vaseline, Hair Gel the list goes on.....

Getting off topic here. Stay focused. Argue the point and don't use distractors

Quote

Quote

"All firearms are designed to kill." Wrong.

Semantics, when you change "are" to "were" then the sentence is 100% correct.

Provide reasons for your arguments.


(We need to have debating classes before letting people post....)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Getting off topic here. Stay focused. Argue the point and don't use distractors

I am on topic. Many objects are constantly villified and people have no issue with it. Take nuclear weapons, take drugs, the list really is quite long. A nuclear bomb is just an object, it needs human interaction to kill. I know it is more extreme, but it would fall udner the same argument. So, why does that argument in your opinion work for firearms, but not for other objects?

Quote

Semantics, when you change "are" to "were" then the sentence is 100% correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Provide reasons for your arguments.

The reasons have been stated many times before. The first gun was not invented to shoot at clay targets, or at paper targets, or to take to a gun range for competition. The first gun was invented to kill people. If you really want all the back up, you don't even have to use google, just use the dz.com search function.

[craddock 0]

Who was questioning what guns were invented for? The point was that today not all guns are designed to kill. Sure they can but that is not what many are designed for.
If you have not caught on by this point, there is little hope for you to understand this.

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Who was questioning what guns were invented for? The point was that today not all guns are designed to kill. Sure they can but that is not what many are designed for.
If you have not caught on by this point, there is little hope for you to understand this.

And i was pointing out that it was a semantics argument since if you changed are to were in the sentence it would be 100% true. Hence, I was agreeing with you that in the current day they are not all specifically designed to kill.

(we don't need debating classes before posting we need reading comprehension classes before posting)

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Just because some have been optimized for practicing on surrogates instead of living targets does not mean that they are not killing machines.

you're being sarcastic right? I have to assume you are...

MB 3528, RB 1182

[kbordson 8]

Quote

I am on topic. Many objects are constantly villified and people have no issue with it. Take nuclear weapons, take drugs, the list really is quite long. A nuclear bomb is just an object, it needs human interaction to kill. I know it is more extreme, but it would fall udner the same argument. So, why does that argument in your opinion work for firearms, but not for other objects?

But in this thread (which was originally about the force of bullets in freefall) the debate was if guns were evil and designed to kill. By expanding the scope, that distracts. I know that other objects are vilified and my argument works for them too. The uranium-235 isn't evil. It's the application of the object. Drugs aren't evil. Cocaine was once in Coca-Cola. It's illegal here now, but so was alcohol at one time. Doesn't mean that EtOH is evil.
Things can not be evil.

"Designed to kill." implies intent. Intent is what conveys context. Objects can be used in certain contexts... but lets again play with semantics.

"The first gun was designed to survive." vs. "The first gun was designed to kill."

Same gun. Gun doesn't know which side is "right" or "wrong."

It's not the object.

But then... to really broaden the discussion.

Perception of the situation will change the reality of "right" and "wrong".

Woman uses the gun in self defence (yeah gun! It SAVED me)
or
Young teen dies tragically while asking for directions (evil gun! It KILLED him)

But... in the end. The ultimate reality is that the teen is dead.... We just don't want to discuss the complex interplay of the social situation, so lets argue that it's the guns fault. Easy answer.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

(we don't need debating classes before posting we need reading comprehension classes before posting)

LMAO!!!!!

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Who was questioning what guns were invented for? The point was that today not all guns are designed to kill. Sure they can but that is not what many are designed for.
If you have not caught on by this point, there is little hope for you to understand this.

That was NOT the point....

To argue round and round around this "point" doesn't make it true. What BS is that.

Every one using common sense will know what weapons are made for. Human beeings with some brain in the head instead of hot air will say/see that clear as daylight.

If you like, discuss until eternity.

*Yawn*

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[craddock 0]

Yes it was the point in fact. It all started with your post claiming the opposite. "Every single gun is designed to kill (that's the purpose)" Wrong, wrong wrong.

Quote

Human beeings with some brain in the head instead of hot air will say/see that clear as daylight.

Childish and very much a mean spirited Personal Attack.

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

[kbordson 8]

Quote

That was NOT the point....

To argue round and round around this "point" doesn't make it true. What BS is that.

*and what is this comment except an argument "around the 'point'"

Quote

Every one using common sense will know what weapons are made for. Human beeings with some brain in the head instead of hot air will say/see that clear as daylight.

*Firearms are not soley used as "weapons." If you read the defination, it describes something used to. Thus intent is critical in titling an object as a weapon. Words can even be weapons and words can injure, defeat, or destroy.

"Common sense" has little to do with the object itself. It's sitting there in the corner.... just a tool. The common sense has to do with PERSON using the object and his/her intent.

(for the record... trying to insult all those that don't hold your opinion with a comment like "Human beeings with some brain in the head instead of hot air" won't win you the argument.)

Quote

If you like, discuss until eternity.

*Yawn*

*If this topic is boring you, move to a different, maybe easier, debate... or ...Here

These arguments aren't really valid.

[billvon 3,116]

>Not all firearms are designed to kill.

Paintball guns are not designed to kill. Neither are water pistols. But firearms are.

To repeat my question a second time:

Is 200fps (freefall speed, or fast baseball speed) high velocity?

[craddock 0]

For what? A firearm? Of course not. It is not even fast for an arrow although it would be fast enough to kill a deer with a good shot.

I have had some air guns that were close to that low although most are higher than that. For target practice anything that low is going to be so terribly affected by wind it would only be useful if you were shooting indoors. Now if you are shooting a cannon ball lets say that fast it would be very high velocity and very lethal.
So I quess with the right load it could be a sufficent to kill but it would make a lousy target firearm.

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

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

For what? A firearm?
...

If they are not militia weapons, are they still protected by the 2nd Amendment?

If all you want to do is shoot at paper targets, isn't it overkill to use something that fires killer projectiles?

...

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

[craddock 0]

Who said all I want to do is shoot a paper tagets?

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

[kbordson 8]

Quote

If they are not militia weapons, are they still protected by the 2nd Amendment?

If all you want to do is shoot at paper targets, isn't it overkill to use something that fires killer projectiles?

"Killer projectiles"?! This phrase is all about generating emotion. Define this term. Man killer? Animal? Which animal? Kill with a "lucky hit" to the carotid (fairly unprotected, very vulnerable but very unlikley target) or a double tap to the head (more protected) Give a direct velocity or at least leave the press phrases out.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Paintball guns are not designed to kill. Neither are water pistols. But firearms are.

Then by your logic, all chairs are designed to kill.

Quote

Is 200fps (freefall speed, or fast baseball speed) high velocity?

Speed is relative. I need a context before I can answer if it is a high velocity. For a bullet, no it isn't very fast, for a car, it is fast. So, again, it depends on context.

You seemed to have missed the majority of my post/point.

Derek

[christelsabine 1]

To both of you - it's a big surprise to me that "common sense" is taken as an offense here ..... weird.

Common sense is a highly important factor since the begin of human being. It saves life.

My common sense tells me a simple fact: A weapon is a killing tool, discuss about it as long as you like. It's not a toy. No matter when it was invented, it was invented to kill. That's been its purpose and still is.

Relax.

edited for typo x 2

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,116]

>For what? A firearm? Of course not.

OK. In that case, by Derek's definition (which includes high speed projectiles) it is not a gun.

So if you make a gun non-lethal (i.e. slow down the projectile to below lethal speeds) it's no longer a gun. However, one that IS designed to be lethal IS a gun. You've just answered the question in a roundabout way.

[craddock 0]

Let me get this straight. You insert Derek's comments into my comments and then tell that I have answered the question.

What was the question though?

And where are is Derek's Defintion since YOU insist that I use it? And why should I use his defintion over yours or Kallends o Websters? What is going on?

All I said is that a 200 fps firearm would not be a very suitable target rifle although with a large enough load it may be lethal.

But what was the question again?

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

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Who said all I want to do is shoot a paper tagets?

Well, some claim that there are guns that are not killing machines because they're just for shooting clays or paper targets.

But I expect you have one of those killing guns?

...

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

[craddock 0]

.

Quote

To both of you - it's a big surprise to me that "common sense" is taken as an offense here ..... weird.

Quit being childish. "Human beeings with some brain in the head instead of hot air will say/see that clear as daylight" was intented to be offensive as it was directed at me, and I am unclear how you are allowed to get away with it.

Quote

No matter when it was invented, it was invented to kill.

I am pretty sure everyone agrees with this. Good tactic though. Just change the word to fit your arguement.

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

[craddock 0]

Quote

Well, some claim that there are guns that are not killing machines because they're just for shooting clays or paper targets.

Then talk to them about it.

Quote

But I expect you have one of those killing guns?

I suppose. I have lots of guns.

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

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Well, some claim that there are guns that are not killing machines because they're just for shooting clays or paper targets.

Then talk to them about it.
.

This is an open forum. If I were writing JUST to you I would have PM'd you.

...

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