Just because there are no videos (or none that I can find) on the net doesn't mean it is not true. Again...go fire one and you will understand. Something that can penetrate 27 inches of ballistic gel is packing a heavy punch.
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:35 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment Still waiting for any kind of proof I am wrong. You continue to tell me I am wrong, yet offer no proof. I have not found anything that supports your statement that some guns (specifically the m1911) can knock a person 'back a few feet' when they are hit with a bullet fired from said weapon. I can surmise that your lack of posting links to such evidence would indicate you have not looked or found such evidence. Either way, you continue to talk out your ass with nothing to support your position. I am asking...no, I am begging..for you to provide any proof at all to support your claim, to prove I am wrong - yet, you will not or cannot do so. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not according to Scott the physics expert... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sisk, Kris [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 9:55 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: RE: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > There are ways around Newton's third law in guns. The person firing the gun > doesn't necessarily have to absorb all the force of the gun firing. You > can't lessen the force but you can redirect it or aborb some of it in the > gun before it gets to the person firing it. That's a necessity with high > caliber guns. A 50 cal would be impossible to fire otherwise. > > -----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:322906 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
