Hell, I will even settle for some kind of realistic/official report, pretty much anything but anecdotal evidence, that says it can knock someone back a couple of feet.
When the bullet(s) was/were fired into the ballistics gel, did the gel get knocked back a couple of feet? I bet there would be a video of that. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:322915 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
