kallend 2,150 #101 August 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf 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. Are you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #102 August 17, 2006 QuoteWhy vilify an object so viciously? Is it fear? Ignornace? Hate? 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. Quote Karen, I take it that you're not aware that Christel is a gun owner, a hunter and I doubt very much she thinks guns are 'EVIL' shes just realistic about the potential for truma they were originaly designed to inflict.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #103 August 17, 2006 Quote If all you want to do is shoot at paper targets, isn't it overkill to use something that fires killer projectiles? No is not. Not if you actually want to hit the paper you are aiming at. For a guy who claims to be an expert in wind drift you are not acting very smart here. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #104 August 17, 2006 >What was the question though? Were guns designed to be lethal? I claim the answer is "yes." That's why they were invented. That's what firearms are designed to do today. Indeed, if you change a gun's muzzle velocity to a speed that's not lethal, according to Derek's definition it's not a gun any more - and according to you, that would make it unsuitable for your purposes. This has become an emotional argument rather than a rational one. Guns are dangerous, lethal instruments. They are excellent tools when it comes to killing, which is why so many soldiers and criminals use them instead of slingshots or bows and arrows. That does not mean they are bad, although some seem to feel that labeling a device "lethal" means it's evil. I disagree. It is the person using it, not the instrument, that makes something evil or good. Why is it important? For the same reason it's important that people understand that skydiving is dangerous. If you treat it as a dangerous sport, and understand that one must get good training, maintain your gear well, make good decisions etc then it can be done relatively safely. Same with guns. A gun is a dangerous device. If operated, maintained and stored correctly, it can be used relatively safely. But treat it as a toy, be careless about its use, or operate it hapazardly, and it may just operate as designed and put a bullet through someone. That's not the gun's fault; it's doing exactly what it was designed to do. That't the operator's fault, and it can happen when guns are NOT treated as the deadly weapons they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #105 August 17, 2006 QuoteAre you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile? Depends on what you're trying to kill. An elephant? A person? What bullet? What firearm? What distance? Honestly, lots of variables. All equally easy to caculate. Using a .22 target rifle. Bullet weight 40 gr. Energy at 1000yds - 26 foot pounds of energy and 537 feet/second. According to the ABL (US Army Ballistics Laboratory), anything with less than 100 foot pounds of energy and/or going less than 1700 feet/sec is considered safe and non lethal. So nope, not a "killer projectile." Now change the parameters and a nail from a nail gun can be a killer projectile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bloody_trauma 2 #106 August 17, 2006 um who ever it was that says you doubt that a round that has been shot into the air could hurt someone your wrong... very wrong. It just happens that a stray round fired into the air left a rather large gash in my bicep when i was in baghdad the first time, thats how i got my first purple heart, another soldier had a round go through the skin on his forearm, who ever you are i wouldnt recommend firing a weapon into the air, its illegal and dangerous. use a blank round and pretend its a live round or use a squib or somethingFly it like you stole it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #107 August 17, 2006 QuoteKaren, I take it that you're not aware that Christel is a gun owner, a hunter and I doubt very much she thinks guns are 'EVIL' shes just realistic about the potential for truma they were originaly designed to inflict. Nope I wasn't, but I definatley got the impression from her posts (and correct me if I'm wrong) that she felt that guns were invented solely for killing and were bad. I still believe that guns are not the bad and evil object. I feel that they are a tool. One that a person can use for survival or harm. It's the intent of the person that can be evil. That's what I'm arguing. (stubbing toe in dirt... and she's the one getting snotty.... why do I feel guilty....stubbing toe) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #108 August 17, 2006 Quote .. One that a person can use for survival or harm. It's the intent of the person that can be evil. That's what I'm arguing. Now that's a real fine argument. Until now, nobody (including me) showed up with it. "Survival or harm". Well said, I have to admit that point. (stubbing toe in dirt... and she's the one getting snotty.... why do I feel guilty....stubbing toe) Wash your feet girl before going to bed I'm not snotty at all dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #103 August 17, 2006 Quote If all you want to do is shoot at paper targets, isn't it overkill to use something that fires killer projectiles? No is not. Not if you actually want to hit the paper you are aiming at. For a guy who claims to be an expert in wind drift you are not acting very smart here. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #104 August 17, 2006 >What was the question though? Were guns designed to be lethal? I claim the answer is "yes." That's why they were invented. That's what firearms are designed to do today. Indeed, if you change a gun's muzzle velocity to a speed that's not lethal, according to Derek's definition it's not a gun any more - and according to you, that would make it unsuitable for your purposes. This has become an emotional argument rather than a rational one. Guns are dangerous, lethal instruments. They are excellent tools when it comes to killing, which is why so many soldiers and criminals use them instead of slingshots or bows and arrows. That does not mean they are bad, although some seem to feel that labeling a device "lethal" means it's evil. I disagree. It is the person using it, not the instrument, that makes something evil or good. Why is it important? For the same reason it's important that people understand that skydiving is dangerous. If you treat it as a dangerous sport, and understand that one must get good training, maintain your gear well, make good decisions etc then it can be done relatively safely. Same with guns. A gun is a dangerous device. If operated, maintained and stored correctly, it can be used relatively safely. But treat it as a toy, be careless about its use, or operate it hapazardly, and it may just operate as designed and put a bullet through someone. That's not the gun's fault; it's doing exactly what it was designed to do. That't the operator's fault, and it can happen when guns are NOT treated as the deadly weapons they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #105 August 17, 2006 QuoteAre you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile? Depends on what you're trying to kill. An elephant? A person? What bullet? What firearm? What distance? Honestly, lots of variables. All equally easy to caculate. Using a .22 target rifle. Bullet weight 40 gr. Energy at 1000yds - 26 foot pounds of energy and 537 feet/second. According to the ABL (US Army Ballistics Laboratory), anything with less than 100 foot pounds of energy and/or going less than 1700 feet/sec is considered safe and non lethal. So nope, not a "killer projectile." Now change the parameters and a nail from a nail gun can be a killer projectile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bloody_trauma 2 #106 August 17, 2006 um who ever it was that says you doubt that a round that has been shot into the air could hurt someone your wrong... very wrong. It just happens that a stray round fired into the air left a rather large gash in my bicep when i was in baghdad the first time, thats how i got my first purple heart, another soldier had a round go through the skin on his forearm, who ever you are i wouldnt recommend firing a weapon into the air, its illegal and dangerous. use a blank round and pretend its a live round or use a squib or somethingFly it like you stole it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #107 August 17, 2006 QuoteKaren, I take it that you're not aware that Christel is a gun owner, a hunter and I doubt very much she thinks guns are 'EVIL' shes just realistic about the potential for truma they were originaly designed to inflict. Nope I wasn't, but I definatley got the impression from her posts (and correct me if I'm wrong) that she felt that guns were invented solely for killing and were bad. I still believe that guns are not the bad and evil object. I feel that they are a tool. One that a person can use for survival or harm. It's the intent of the person that can be evil. That's what I'm arguing. (stubbing toe in dirt... and she's the one getting snotty.... why do I feel guilty....stubbing toe) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #108 August 17, 2006 Quote .. One that a person can use for survival or harm. It's the intent of the person that can be evil. That's what I'm arguing. Now that's a real fine argument. Until now, nobody (including me) showed up with it. "Survival or harm". Well said, I have to admit that point. (stubbing toe in dirt... and she's the one getting snotty.... why do I feel guilty....stubbing toe) Wash your feet girl before going to bed I'm not snotty at all dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #109 August 17, 2006 Quote(Re: Craddock) That is an excellent and unemotional explanation. I second that compliment to Craddock. I want to thank him and a few others who have jumped in here on my side to help defend and explain this position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #110 August 17, 2006 Quote>What was the question though? Were guns designed to be lethal? I claim the answer is "yes." That's why they were invented. That's what firearms are designed to do today. I still hold "no." QuoteThe exact date of the development of gunpowder is unknown, but is believed to be early 11th century in China. The earliest record of the use of gunpowder in the western world was in the mid 11th century. Roger Bacon was one of the greatest scientists of the Middle Ages. He was born in 1241 in Somerset, England. Between 1257 and 1265, Bacon wrote a book of chemistry called Opus Majus in which he included a recipe for gunpowder. The earliest picture of a gun is in a manuscript dated 1326 showing a pear-shaped cannon firing an arrow. Crude cannons were used by King Edward III against the Scots in the following year. The design of the firearm components has remained almost unchanged since the first hand-held weapons were built; with the exception of the firing mechanism. The earliest guns had a simple hole in the barrel, called a touch-hole, where the powder inside the barrel was exposed. The gun was fired by touching either a burning wick, called a match, or a red-hot iron to the exposed powder in the touch-hole. Over the centuries, the development of more sophisticated and reliable firing mechanisms marked the progression of firearm development from the earliest crude cannon to the modern cartridge fed firearms we have today History of Firearms So gunpowder and the first "gun" was "invented" by Roger Bacon as found in his Opus Majus in 1267. Intelluctual endeavor. Not for killing or lethality. I will grant that later designs were to use that purpose. (Man.... you make me actually work and research. And you have to go and post logical and factual stuffs. I think I love you!!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #111 August 17, 2006 QuoteJust because some have been optimized for practicing on surrogates instead of living targets does not mean that they are not killing machines. There are people who shoot trap, skeet, bullseye, and other target shooting competitions, who have never killed an animal with their firearms. These are shooting sports unto themselves, with no connection to killing whatsoever, by many people. They don't participate because they consider it practice for shooting birds or mammals. They participate just because it's fun by itself, with clay or paper targets. Thus, their firearms are not "killing machines". You know that, of course, but are promoting that view at this point just to continue to stir up trouble. And it's making you look bad to fail to acknowledge the truth in this matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #112 August 17, 2006 QuoteUsing a .22 target rifle. Bullet weight 40 gr. Energy at 1000yds - 26 foot pounds of energy and 537 feet/second. According to the ABL (US Army Ballistics Laboratory), anything with less than 100 foot pounds of energy and/or going less than 1700 feet/sec is considered safe and non lethal. So nope, not a "killer projectile." Ok, so how comfortable would you feel standing in front of one then with someone aiming it at you? "Don't worry aout me, the ABL have considered it safe and non-lethal" Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #113 August 17, 2006 QuoteIf they are not militia weapons, are they still protected by the 2nd Amendment? That's a separate issue for discussion - go start your own thread. QuoteIf all you want to do is shoot at paper targets, isn't it overkill to use something that fires killer projectiles? To shoot at targets hundreds of yards away requires lead projectiles at high velocity. That, consequently, also happens to be deadly to humans, but is not the purpose when target shooting. Would you restrict gun owners to BB pellets fired from air guns at 25 yards or less? Aren't sport utility vehicles overkill for personal transportation? Would you like to see them banned because they possess too much deadly kinetic energy compared to smaller cars? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #114 August 17, 2006 QuoteAre you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile? Correct - it is not. It's not intended to kill anything. Just because it possesses the kinetic energy to kill if misused, does not make it a "killer projectile". Otherwise, you are also going to have to admit that we all drive around in "killer cars", and clean our houses with "killer cleaning fluids", and have garages filled with "killer power tools", and power our houses with "killer electricity". Is this where you want to go with your argument? It seems to me that this highlights the absurdity of your position. Keep up the good work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #115 August 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteUsing a .22 target rifle. Bullet weight 40 gr. Energy at 1000yds - 26 foot pounds of energy and 537 feet/second. According to the ABL (US Army Ballistics Laboratory), anything with less than 100 foot pounds of energy and/or going less than 1700 feet/sec is considered safe and non lethal. So nope, not a "killer projectile." Ok, so how comfortable would you feel standing in front of one then with someone aiming it at you? "Don't worry aout me, the ABL have considered it safe and non-lethal" Would I stand in front of it. Probably just to be stubborn , but I still refuse to fire my pistol/rifle or any firearm in a way that could potentionally harm another - lethal or not. (I got chided at the 1000yd range once because I could see one of the party in my scope and refused to fire. "You should be more sure of your shot." Bullshit. There are too many variables, espcially at that range, to risk it. Knowing where your target is, your backstop and other objects in the area is critical to safety.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #116 August 17, 2006 QuoteAren't sport utility vehicles overkill for personal transportation? Would you like to see them banned? Actually, i would rather see them banned here than guns or knives!! They kill more people! I have never seen a gun in this country outside the armed forces, my old .22 range and bisley.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #117 August 17, 2006 Quoteum who ever it was that says you doubt that a round that has been shot into the air could hurt someone your wrong... very wrong. It just happens that a stray round fired into the air left a rather large gash in my bicep when i was in baghdad the first time, thats how i got my first purple heart, another soldier had a round go through the skin on his forearm, who ever you are i wouldnt recommend firing a weapon into the air, its illegal and dangerous. use a blank round and pretend its a live round or use a squib or something You're way behind the knowledge curve in this debate. No one claims that every round fired into the air at any angle is safe. No one made any such recommendation that to do so is a safe practice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #118 August 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteUsing a .22 target rifle. Bullet weight 40 gr. Energy at 1000yds - 26 foot pounds of energy and 537 feet/second. According to the ABL (US Army Ballistics Laboratory), anything with less than 100 foot pounds of energy and/or going less than 1700 feet/sec is considered safe and non lethal. So nope, not a "killer projectile." Ok, so how comfortable would you feel standing in front of one then with someone aiming it at you? "Don't worry aout me, the ABL have considered it safe and non-lethal" Just because it won't kill you, doesn't mean that it wouldn't hurt. Nor does it mean that it's a good idea. But just because it will sting if you are stupid and misuse the firearm, doesn't mean that it was designed to kill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #119 August 17, 2006 >And you have to go and post logical and factual stuffs. I think I love you!! Did I mention I can do card tricks, too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #120 August 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteAre you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile? Depends on what you're trying to kill. An elephant? A person? What bullet? What firearm? What distance? Honestly, lots of variables. All equally easy to caculate. . Back to the beginning - nail guns are designed for constructive, not destructive purposes. And I think we are talking about humans, not elephants or blue whales.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #121 August 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteAre you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile? Correct - it is not. It's not intended to kill anything. Just because it possesses the kinetic energy to kill if misused, does not make it a "killer projectile". Otherwise, you are also going to have to admit that we all drive around in "killer cars", and clean our houses with "killer cleaning fluids", and have garages filled with "killer power tools", and power our houses with "killer electricity". Is this where you want to go with your argument? It seems to me that this highlights the absurdity of your position. Keep up the good work. Sure, and the Blue Angels' F18s are not fighter planes because they have colored smoke canisters and their job is to fly in airshows. Nice argument, John. Silly, but nice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #122 August 18, 2006 QuoteIndeed, if you change a gun's muzzle velocity to a speed that's not lethal, according to Derek's definition it's not a gun any more I never said that. If you think 200 fps can't be lethal, then you must also think all chairs are designed to kill. I notice you keep avoiding that one. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #123 August 18, 2006 >You must also think all chairs are designed to kill. All electric chairs are designed to kill - even though you can sit in them and not die. All CHAIRS are not designed to kill, even though you can hit someone over the head with one and kill them. All firearms are designed to kill, even if you can use one without killing anyone. All tools are not designed to kill, even if you can kill someone by hitting them with a hammer. All bombers are designed to destroy, even though I watch B-2's in airshows and have jumped from B-17's. All airplanes are not designed to destroy, even if 767's are sometimes used to destroy buildings. All nuclear bombs are designed to destroy, even if some have been used as excavators. All nuclear reactors are not designed to destroy, even though Chernobyl did a lot of damage to the Ukraine. Pretty straightforward, and I think 99.99% of the people in the US would agree with the above definitions. I think people have gotten emotional about this issue, and don't want to call guns deadly weapons because that makes them sound bad. But that's exactly what they are. Doesn't make them evil, of course. They have no innate good or evil. But they are excellent at killing - which is why they are popular with armies, insurgents and criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #124 August 18, 2006 Certainly kill a rabbit, and do an awful lot of damage to a human (and yes, kill them) if you shot them in the right place. Don't quite understand how that is non lethal and "safe"Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #125 August 18, 2006 QuoteThat is an excellent and unemotional explanation. Sure was -- but to a 100% sarcastic remark on my part. Need more winks and smileys for this crowd. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
