Please show me where I said that. Attributing things to someone that they never said is dishonest.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > This coming from the guy that claims that weapons don't absorb energy to > reduce recoil. Whatever. The article specifically states that some of the > kickback is the body's reaction to the force hitting it. Anyone who has > fired a .45 and seen it hit an object can attest to the force of the blow. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 7:53 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > 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:322936 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
