Show me video. If this gun can do what you claim, there must be video of it on the Internet...somewhere. If you cannot, then I guess we can chalk it up to a flare up of your cranial rectitis.
Your reply makes no attempt to disprove me. I guess your avoidance is as close to a 'you are right, I am wrong' as we will ever get out of you. On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Go read up on the m1911 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 8:09 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > I think you need to understand physics. > > There is no gun that can be held by one person, that when fired at > another person, will knock that other person back a few feet. (Maybe a > rail gun could do it, but I do not think there are any hand held rail > guns...yet) If there is such a gun, I am sure you can find some video > somewhere that proves me wrong. My challenge to you is to find such > proof. > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Eric Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think you need to study how guns work. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:08 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >> >> >> OK...you keep believing in magic guns and bullets, I stay firmly >> rooted in the real world. Sound fair? >> >> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Eric Roberts >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If you fire a .50 cal rifle (they are used as sniper rifles) you dont >> move >>> a bit because you have more leverage. It's why you can fire a .50 cal >>> machine gun without ending up in the next county after a few rounds. Now >> if >>> you were to take a 50 cal and try and Rambo it...yeah...you are going to >> get >>> thrown back as the recoil on it isn't designed to absorb the energy. A >> .50 >>> cal rifle, on the other hand, has recoil spring to absorb some of that >>> energy directed back at you so the bullet will effectively have more of a >>> punch than the rifle but will have on your shoulder...same goes with a >>> m1911...re recoil springs and venting cause it to have less of a > blowback, >>> energy wise, than the bullet has punching power if that makes sense. > Just >>> for sake of argument, the bullet may exert 500 lbs of pressure on the >> target >>> it hits, while you may only feel 50 lbs of pressure on your body from >> firing >>> it because of venting and the recoil mechanisms. The energy coming back >> at >>> you is absorbed by springs or vented and thus deflected in a different >>> direction thus lessening it's effect on you. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:52 PM >>> To: cf-community >>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>> >>> >>> IIRC, the biggest gun they tested was a .50 caliber rifle. >>> >>> I do not have to fire a gun to know that any bullets it shoots cannot >>> defy the laws of physics. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Eric Roberts >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Again...you obviously have never fired an m1911. The force the round >>> exudes >>>> when it hits a target is pretty intense. I dont know what weapons they >>>> tested on Mythbusters (I would certainly like to see the episode), but >>> they >>>> obviously didn't test the m1911. When you fire it, it has a pretty hard >>>> kick that causes your hands to go back and the gun to go up. That is > one >>> of >>>> the several reasons why it is so accurate because you have to totally >>> re-aim >>>> for the next shot. Part of it is also because the round is so huge. It >>> is >>>> pretty useless at a distance, but close range, it packs a punch. Id >> dont >>>> know if any of the other vets here used it as I think they are all much >>>> younger than me and probably would have used the 9mm handgun the > military >>>> adopted. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:19 AM >>>> To: cf-community >>>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>>> >>>> >>>> Had to look it up, could not think of the reference at the time that >>>> proves this is physically imposible, its Newton's Third Law of Motion >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> OK, earlier you said it it would 'knock him back a few feet'...that is >>>>> physically impossible, without the shooter also getting knocked back a >>>>> few feet. 'knock them on their ass' is quite a bit different than >>>>> 'knock him back a few feet'. :D >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Eric Roberts >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess you have never fired an m1911...it's doesn't knock you back at >>>> all. >>>>>> The army adopted the handgun during the Philippine Insurrection when >> the >>>>>> Philippine Moros, who were hopped up on drugs, would keep on charging >>>> when >>>>>> hit by the revolvers that were previously used. The .45 cal round > that >>>> the >>>>>> m1911 fired hit them and knocked them on their ass so they wouldn't > get >>>> back >>>>>> up. The handgun was used up until the late 80's/early 90's when it > was >>>>>> replaced by the much less powerful (and more accurate at greater >>>> distances) >>>>>> 9mm. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:21 AM >>>>>> To: cf-community >>>>>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Any weapon that will knock the bad guy back a few feet will also knock >>>>>> you back a few feet. I know this because I saw it in Mythbusters. :D >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Eric Roberts >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I were to have a firearm for self defense, I'll take the m1911 any >>>> day. >>>>>>> Screw the little 9mm handguns...I want something that would not only >>>> kill >>>>>> my >>>>>>> opponent, but knock him back a few feet ;-) Which is one of the >>> reasons >>>> I >>>>>>> won't own one. I wasn't trained to injure. I was trained to shoot to >>>> kill >>>>>>> (one shot one kill as the saying went) and I really don't want to be >>> put >>>>>> in >>>>>>> that situation. I'll give my opponent a fighting chance and stick to >>>>>> blades >>>>>>> ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:49 AM >>>>>>> To: cf-community >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I could go for either of those, or maybe the M4 shotgun. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've got the Remington 870 Express. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have a Benelli SuperNova tactical shotgun. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:322867 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
