Guns

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C
Police consider the "deadly zone" for any type of knife to be 25 feet. You know why? Knives can be thrown. Same goes for hammers, baseball bats, and many other common household objects. Should we outlaw butter knives? I know someone who has a 6" long scar from being stabbed by one, so according to your logic, they're evil deadly weapons that only malicious cold hearted murders with small penises that they're compensating for own them.

Riiiiiight,.. you can throw a knife at 2000ft per second....

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by emad
they have projectile based tazers that shoot off a needle or something that zaps the target...no clue how well they work...i'm looking for that now. i know for sure that some police officers get to carry them around on occasion since they incapacitate like rubber bullets

Unless you buy one of those tazers that only the police can purchase. Which isn't possible, unless you're a cop, and then you'd have a gun already.

 

[milefile]

Double post sorry.

 

[Talentless]

Mile, your PMs is full.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Riiiiiight,.. you can throw a knife at 2000ft per second....

BTW,.. I also heard that they have semi/fully-automatic knives too.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
thanx, you made my point for me.

No I didn't. You must not have your own point. In fact, I haven't been able to find a point in anything you've said so far besides "Guns are bad mmkay?"

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
No I didn't. What point is that?

That even if a woman has a gun she can be raped,.. so whats the sence of having it if it's no more functional than a tazor?

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Riiiiiight,.. you can throw a knife at 2000ft per second....

A knife thrown at 10 feet per second is every bit as damaging and deadly as a bullet travelling at 2,000 feet per second. Also, for your information, a 9mm bullet travels, on average, less than 1,300 feet per second. A .45 is even slower, and it's a more damaging round. Same with the .40 S&W, and .357 SIG.

Your knowledge of weapons is vastly lacking. I suggest you stick to opinionated gibberish, you're much better at it.

 

[Talentless]

You are scary. You think 2000ft per second is necessary to make a knife impossible to avoid and capable of penetrating flesh and bone?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C
A knife thrown at 10 feet per second is every bit as damaging and deadly as a bullet travelling at 2,000 feet per second. Also, for your information, a 9mm bullet travels, on average, less than 1,300 feet per second. A .45 is even slower, and it's a more damaging round. Same with the .40 S&W, and .357 SIG.

Your knowledge of weapons is vastly lacking. I suggest you stick to opinionated gibberish, you're much better at it.

So,.. watching someone prepair, aim, and throw a knife is the same as them aiming a gun and pulling the trigger? That makes perfect sence now thanx.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

You never relplied to the semi-automatic knife theory,... what happens when the assailent misses?

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
That even if a woman has a gun she can be raped,.. so whats the sence of having it if it's no more functional than a tazor?

If a woman sees a potential rapist, she can have her weapon ready. If she gets to her gun, she can draw before the assailant reaches her, and order him to stop. Not so with a stun gun.

That's why it's more functional than a stun gun.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
That even if a woman has a gun she can be raped,.. so whats the sence of having it if it's no more functional than a tazor?

But it is. It depends on the woman. Your problem is that you are leaving the individual out of this debate. You are looking at Guns. You are not seeing them as tool that humans control. Humans are the problem, not guns.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C
If a woman sees a potential rapist, she can have her weapon ready. If she gets to her gun, she can draw before the assailant reaches her, and order him to stop. Not so with a stun gun.

That's why it's more functional than a stun gun.

not when milefile explains it, no,. it doesnt work that way.

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
So,.. watching someone prepair, aim, and throw a knife is the same as them aiming a gun and pulling the trigger? That makes perfect sence now thanx.

You don't have to "prepare" a knife. You pull it out and throw it. Aiming and throwing is one motion.

With a gun, you have to draw, if it isn't cocked, **** it. Aim. Fire. It takes longer than it does to throw a knife, trust me, I've done both.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
But it is. It depends on the woman. Your problem is that you are leaving the individual out of this debate. You are looking at Guns. You are not seeing them as tool that humans control. Humans are the problem, not guns.

Humans are the problem in everything,.. taking guns away would lessen that factor of the problem.

 

[Talentless]

A gun is made functional by its physical capabilities, which are not invalidated by environmental factors that have no direct affect on them.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C
trust me,

not gonna happen...

 

[emad]

http://www.myotron.net/myotron_independent_evaluation.htm

Seattle PD report on m26 taser...
http://www.pointshooting.com/taser1.htm

that's all i got the time to look for...not much stats on successes, but the seattle one is good

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Humans are the problem in everything,.. taking guns away would lessen that factor of the problem.

And then who decides when to stop taking dangerous things away? You? Me? How can that be? We differ!

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
And then who decides when to stop taking dangerous things away? You? Me? How can that be? We differ?!

Thats why this has been in debate for say what?.... 1000 years?

It kills me how you guy's can argue for something that is meant for one thing and one thing only,..... harming people.

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
not gonna happen...

Ok, go get a knife from the kitchen. Throw it at something.

Then get a pistol. Pull it out. Aim. Shoot.

Come back, tell me which one takes longer. Actually, don't bother, I know which takes longer, and know that when faced with fact you shy away and spit out more nonsense.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C
Ok, go get a knife from the kitchen. Throw it at something.

Then get a pistol. Pull it out. Aim. Shoot.

Come back, tell me which one takes longer. Actually, don't bother, I know which takes longer, and know that when faced with fact you shy away and spit out more nonsense.

you still havent commented on the semi-automatic knife.....

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
It kills me how you guy's can argue for something that is meant for one thing and one thing only,..... harming people.

So the shooting teams that compete in the Olympics are hurting people? The police who use them to disable criminals out to hurt you and me are hurting people? The hunter who uses them to catch the food that you buy from the supermarket is hurting people?

Your (lack of-) logic is astounding.

 

[emad]

is it me or is this thread moving VERY VERY fast between u 3? it's a non-stop arguement that's not going anywhere...somebody toss ur opinion in!!! QUICK

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C
So the shooting teams that compete in the Olympics are hurting people? The police who use them to disable criminals out to hurt you and me are hurting people? The hunter who uses them to catch the food that you buy from the supermarket is hurting people?

Your (lack of-) logic is astounding.

Im sure thats the first thing that went through the inventors mind,.. "hey, I can use this to kill animals with"

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
you still havent commented on the semi-automatic knife.....

What semi-automatic knife? A single knife, with a 6" blade hitting you in the chest is more traumatizing than an entire clip load of bullets. This is also a proven fact.

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Im sure thats the first thing that went through the inventors mind,.. "hey, I can use this to kill animals with"

How do you know what was going through his mind? Were you around back then? No? Didn't think so.

 

[Talentless]

Harming people is the point. That's the most assured way of preventing oneself from being harmed by another.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C
What semi-automatic knife? A single knife, with a 6" blade hitting you in the chest is more traumatizing than an entire clip load of bullets. This is also a proven fact.

I'd say a person has a greater chance of surviving one knife vs. 16 bullets in a mtter of 10 seconds.