Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Several Officers Injured By Suspect Firing In Shooting In Philadelphia;
117 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
RETRO, I am not talking about anything assisting you in order to improve your aim. I am talking about technology creating the recoil and measuring any external effects.
The person with the firearm would experience the same effects as with a real bullet but with a virtual bullet. The firearm would react as if a real bullet had been used.
The person with the firearm would experience the same effects as with a real bullet but with a virtual bullet. The firearm would react as if a real bullet had been used.
naomi24
/// I didn't see a question in your headline. Simply a statement. What was your question? ///
Like most news section threads, no question needed, but those who enter a particular news item expect fellow ABers to address the issue rather than go of on who holds a gun licence, and what guns are designed for?
Perhaps if anyone is interested in such things they should enter a thread specifically to debate those issues, and not sidetrack other's threads?
/// I didn't see a question in your headline. Simply a statement. What was your question? ///
Like most news section threads, no question needed, but those who enter a particular news item expect fellow ABers to address the issue rather than go of on who holds a gun licence, and what guns are designed for?
Perhaps if anyone is interested in such things they should enter a thread specifically to debate those issues, and not sidetrack other's threads?
AOG - // Perhaps if anyone is interested in such things they should enter a thread specifically to debate those issues, and not sidetrack other's threads? //
As I have pointed out previously - originating a thread does not give you 'owner's rights' - the thread is the place where anyone who wishes can add their view, and it is the nature of debate that issues widen as debates go on.
Just because you have animosity towards the way the debate is headed, or the person or persons who are heading it that way, does not mean you can exercise any control over it.
As I have pointed out previously - originating a thread does not give you 'owner's rights' - the thread is the place where anyone who wishes can add their view, and it is the nature of debate that issues widen as debates go on.
Just because you have animosity towards the way the debate is headed, or the person or persons who are heading it that way, does not mean you can exercise any control over it.
AOG - // /// I didn't see a question in your headline. Simply a statement. What was your question? ///
Like most news section threads, no question needed, but those who enter a particular news item expect fellow ABers to address the issue rather than go of on who holds a gun licence, and what guns are designed for? //
If you don't ask a specific question - and more often than not, you don't, then you can't really complain when the debate takes on its own direction - people can't stick to a question if there is no question there in the first place.
Like most news section threads, no question needed, but those who enter a particular news item expect fellow ABers to address the issue rather than go of on who holds a gun licence, and what guns are designed for? //
If you don't ask a specific question - and more often than not, you don't, then you can't really complain when the debate takes on its own direction - people can't stick to a question if there is no question there in the first place.
Naomi - // the gun, although in the wrong hands is capable of killing, that is not what it is specifically designed to do and it is not its sole purpose. //
I repeat, yet again, that it is exactly what it is designed to do, and I have never said that it was it's sole purpose.
// Whether or not it kills depends upon where it is aimed…. and that is the choice of the person who wields it – pretty much as the sharp knives I have in my kitchen drawer are, in the wrong hands, very capable of inflicting death. Guns per se don’t kill people any more than knives per se kill people. People kill people. //
A cliché, and again, failing to address the point - guns were, and are designed to kill people, that is what they are designed to do, and that is what they do.
I think you completely undertand the point I am making, but since I have never in your entire time on the AB ever known you to admit that you were wrong, or that you have been convinced against your original view.
I think you are unwilling to admit that I am right, partly because it goes against your nature, and partly because you don't like to admit to me that you are in error.
You are clearly going to continue to repeat and dissemble, so I will bow out of this section of the debate.
I fully expect a response saying that I can 'think what I like' - but the evidence is here on the thread for anyone to read - have a another look through, and see if you can admit that your notion that guns were designed to shoot at 'targets' does not detract from my point, even though you want to wriggle round it with semantics about the use of the word 'target'.
Guns were conceived and designed to kill people - it's a fact, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
I repeat, yet again, that it is exactly what it is designed to do, and I have never said that it was it's sole purpose.
// Whether or not it kills depends upon where it is aimed…. and that is the choice of the person who wields it – pretty much as the sharp knives I have in my kitchen drawer are, in the wrong hands, very capable of inflicting death. Guns per se don’t kill people any more than knives per se kill people. People kill people. //
A cliché, and again, failing to address the point - guns were, and are designed to kill people, that is what they are designed to do, and that is what they do.
I think you completely undertand the point I am making, but since I have never in your entire time on the AB ever known you to admit that you were wrong, or that you have been convinced against your original view.
I think you are unwilling to admit that I am right, partly because it goes against your nature, and partly because you don't like to admit to me that you are in error.
You are clearly going to continue to repeat and dissemble, so I will bow out of this section of the debate.
I fully expect a response saying that I can 'think what I like' - but the evidence is here on the thread for anyone to read - have a another look through, and see if you can admit that your notion that guns were designed to shoot at 'targets' does not detract from my point, even though you want to wriggle round it with semantics about the use of the word 'target'.
Guns were conceived and designed to kill people - it's a fact, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
Sorry again aog
Naomi I now realise why you do not belong to a club and your conditions were less stringent than mine for possessing them.I should of determined the type of firearms you possess first. Security remains the same for Sec 1 firearms as Sec 5 although other stringent constraints apply to Sec 1 with regard to club membership, purchase and expenditure,use etc. My fault. Should of realised as I still have an old Shotgun certificate albet expired.
Naomi I now realise why you do not belong to a club and your conditions were less stringent than mine for possessing them.I should of determined the type of firearms you possess first. Security remains the same for Sec 1 firearms as Sec 5 although other stringent constraints apply to Sec 1 with regard to club membership, purchase and expenditure,use etc. My fault. Should of realised as I still have an old Shotgun certificate albet expired.
Naomi - // AH, no wriggling here - and leave your wonky perception of my nature out of it. I disagree with you. //
Disagreeing with me does not make my point wrong though - and I believe you know that, but you will never acknowledge it, which is fine - the thread is here for anyone interested - but I do recommend that they give retrocop's endless diatribes about his gun regulations a swerve, since they have about as much to do with the debate as the dark side of the moon.
Disagreeing with me does not make my point wrong though - and I believe you know that, but you will never acknowledge it, which is fine - the thread is here for anyone interested - but I do recommend that they give retrocop's endless diatribes about his gun regulations a swerve, since they have about as much to do with the debate as the dark side of the moon.
Retrocop - // Sorry again aog
Naomi I now realise why you do not belong to a club and your conditions were less stringent than mine for possessing them.I should of determined the type of firearms you possess first. Security remains the same for Sec 1 firearms as Sec 5 although other stringent constraints apply to Sec 1 with regard to club membership, purchase and expenditure,use etc. My fault. Should of realised as I still have an old Shotgun certificate albet expired. //
Deeply fascinating ...
Naomi I now realise why you do not belong to a club and your conditions were less stringent than mine for possessing them.I should of determined the type of firearms you possess first. Security remains the same for Sec 1 firearms as Sec 5 although other stringent constraints apply to Sec 1 with regard to club membership, purchase and expenditure,use etc. My fault. Should of realised as I still have an old Shotgun certificate albet expired. //
Deeply fascinating ...
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV60 mins ago
ChatterBank84 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.