Not necessarily...the wooden frame was probably anchored (I am guessing)
Without going back to re-read the entire convo... You said something to the effect a gun could absorb the energy of the backblast (for lack of a better term). You did state that it was against the laws of physics. You did not say, as part of that convo that knocking someone back was against the laws of physics...that part of a different part of the conversation. You specifically stated that it is against the laws of physics for a gun to absorb the energy...I think you said that the shooter would be thrown backwards.... -----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:26 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment I never said that 'weapons don't absorb energy to reduce recoil' Please shoe me where I said that. I did say it was against the laws of physics, but I was referring to being able to knock someone back several feet with a bullet frired from a gun. Now you are purposely taking my comments out of context, which is also dishonest. We could end this debate if you could just provide some shred of evidence that you are correct. I have fired a .45 at targets attached to wooden frames (made with 2x4s), lying on, but not attached to, the ground. Because I am not that good of a shot, I hit the frame several times. Based on what you have said, shouldn't the wooden frames been knocked back a few feet? Instead, they barely moved as the bullets passed completely through them. Care to explain how this happened? Maybe I had the magic gun shooting the magic bullets? It is obvious you have no proof or evidence to support your statements, why not just man up and admit you were/are wrong? On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > You stated that it was a violation of the laws of physics. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:57 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > 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. > -- Scott Stroz --------------- You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris http://xkcd.com/3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:323012 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
