Truly sad that you cannot admit when you are wrong. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah...knockback as in being knocked back...pretty simple... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 6:24 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > Debating with you is like playing Calvin-ball. When you are confronted > with facts, you change the argument. > > So, now you are talking about 'knockback' instead of 'being knocked > back a couple of feet'. > > Man up and admit you were talking out your ass. We have all been > guilty if it a few times (some more than others), but at least have > the fucking balls to admit it when you are called out for it. > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Eric Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Knockback >> >> The idea of "knockback" is a subset or simplification of energy transfer >> theory, and states that a bullet of sufficient caliber at sufficient speed >> which transfers all its energy to a subject has enough force, by sheer >> momentum of the bullet, to stop forward momentum of an attacker and knock >> them backwards or downwards. The idea was first widely expounded in >> ballistics discussions during American involvement in Philippine >> insurrections and, simultaneously, in British involvement in the > Caribbean, >> when front-line reports stated that the .38 caliber revolvers carried by >> U.S. and British soldiers were incapable of bringing down a charging >> warrior. Thus, in the early 1900s, the U.S. reverted to the .45 Colt in >> single action revolvers, and later adopted the .45ACP cartridge in what > was >> to become the M1911A1 pistol and the British adopted the .455 Webley > caliber >> cartridge in the Webley Revolver. The larger cartridges were chosen > largely >> due to the Big Hole Theory (a larger hole does more damage), but the > common >> interpretation was that these were changes from a light, > deeply-penetrating >> bullet to a larger, heavier "manstopper" bullet although another theory is >> that a faster smaller bullet will deliver more Hyrdostatic shock to the >> target, the latter is most likely true. >> >> The "knockback" effect is however commonly "seen" in real-life shootings, >> and can be explained by physiological and psychological means. Humans >> encountering a physical hit, be it a punch or a bullet, are conditioned to >> absorb the blow by moving in the same direction as the force. The physical >> effect against a non-penetrating weapon is to reduce the force felt by the >> blow, and in addition, retreating from an attack increases the distance > such >> an attack must cover, which in the case of non-projectile weapons such as >> fists or a knife, places the target out of range of further attack. In >> addition, there is a theoretical sociological explanation, that in modern >> civilization, with far greater separation by most individuals from > violence, >> hunting, and combat, normal individuals may simply recoil, buckle, or fall >> backward when hit by a bullet, even when in pure physiological terms they >> are perfectly capable of continuing to charge. >> >> Although knockback is not possible with a handgun bullet, it can be an >> actual effect occurring in reaction to being hit by a massive slug, such > as >> a rubber bullet or sandbag fired from a shotgun. The dynamics of a slug >> round are quite different than penetrating bullets; the projectile is here >> designed not to penetrate but instead to strike a hard, blunt force blow, >> and as the momentum carried by a shotgun cartridge is greater than >> practically any production handgun cartridge, the force imparted is >> comparable to a hard punch and is capable, by physics, of affecting a >> person's forward motion. In any case, due to conservation of momentum, the >> gun's recoil is always larger than the bullet's knockback, as some > momentum >> of the bullet is lost during flight, and if the bullet penetrates through >> the target it will not have imparted all its momentum into the target. >> >> -----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:322925 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
