Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[Bunz]

Ok Folks,
Pretty simple question. Who should not be able to buy firearms, and why?

[USMC the Almighty]

In my opinion, convicted violent criminals have given up their constitutional right to bear arms. Everyone else who passes a psych test should be allowed to buy guns.

[Bunz]

In my opinion, convicted violent criminals have given up their constitutional right to bear arms. Everyone else who passes a psych test should be allowed to buy guns.

Interesting, so you would like to see everyone who is not a violent criminal should require a psych test?

[USMC the Almighty]

Interesting, so you would like to see everyone who is not a violent criminal should require a psych test?

Yes to a certain degree though, I think it should be relatviely low-intensity. That's not a good phrase to describe it but what I mean is that the psych test shouldn't make it impossible for 50% of the population to buy guns. It should aim to weed out the few people who (a) do not have a compelling or consistent reason to buy the gun in the first place or (b) have a psycholigcal mindset and history that makes them very likely to fly off the handle.

When you look at the facts, the far far majority of gun crimes are committed by people who obtained their firearms illegally. Making it harder for people to buy guns isn't necessarily going to stop people from having them.

[pocketfullofshells]

Convicted Felons ( for violent cases ...)
Anyone who has used a gun in a crime ( should be covered by most above, but just in case)
Those who have been found mentally not stable before, such as the V Tech guy who was not able to stand trial do it it already....
Those who are actively using Anti Depressants should be looked at a bit closer, but they are so rampant for so much stuff these days I would not say that's a out.

also age limits 16 for shotguns/Rifles, 21 for pistols , seems to make sense

[Coyote]

Convicted Felons ( for violent cases ...)
Anyone who has used a gun in a crime ( should be covered by most above, but just in case)
Those who have been found mentally not stable before, such as the V Tech guy who was not able to stand trial do it it already....
Those who are actively using Anti Depressants should be looked at a bit closer, but they are so rampant for so much stuff these days I would not say that's a out.

also age limits 16 for shotguns/Rifles, 21 for pistols , seems to make sense


I would agree except for people using anti-depressants. THOSE are the people getting treated, not the ones you need to worry about.

[pocketfullofshells]

I would agree except for people using anti-depressants. THOSE are the people getting treated, not the ones you need to worry about.

yea but look what happens when they get off them....you get 5 dead, and 16 wounded at the next school shooting as we just saw. ( I am not sure those numbers are 100%)

Also those on antiDepressants are actually very prone to suicide...even though they are suppose to help.

[PLC1]

Who shouldn't be able to buy guns? Anyone with a criminal history, and anyone who hasn't passed a gun safety course. Anyone who has a history of hunting from vehicles, or shooting at noises in the brush. Anyone who likes to carry a gun to "shoot snakes", ie, go blasting away at a harmless snake while bullets bounce at random everywhere. Anyone with a history of mixing alcohol and gunpowder.

There are probably more categories, but not every drunken redneck in the country should have a firearm.

[numinus]

Anyone who isn't a member of the armed forces shouldn't have guns.

[Jarlaxle]

Convicted felons should not be able to own firearms. Everyone else should be able to.

Speaking of which...it's nice out, I think I'll see if my uncle wants to go shooting today. I want to shoot his elephant gun. :D

[SW85]

Convicted felons. The severely mentally handicapped. Those suffering from overt psychopathology.

[Bunz]

Intersting replies so far and thanks to those of you who took the time. It seems to me the consensus is that the current federal laws against the mentally ill and felons owning guns is adequate in principal while there are certainly flaws in the practice of the law as is seen in the public massacres America experiences all to often.

Numinus, we disagree based on what you posted. I think the second amendment covers quite well the legality of ordinary citizens owning firearms.
I am curious as to why you think only those in the armed forces should have them? As an otherwise law abiding citizen and resonsible gun owner should the actions of a few cause me to lose that right?

[Pidgey]

As a drastic simplification, I think the inclusion of the right to bear arms was meant to protect the people from an overreaching government.

Pidgey

[Bunz]

As a drastic simplification, I think the inclusion of the right to bear arms was meant to protect the people from an overreaching government.

Pidgey

Hi Pidgey, I would certainly agree with your statement on the reasoning behind some of the intention of the 2nd amendment. While that may have been practical throughout much of the first decades of American history. The government is much better armed than its citizens.

As a side note, I will also point out that a well armed citizenry makes for a very difficult situation in terms of an invasion etc. While I dont think America need worry about a foreign army making an invasion in the forseeable future, I think the lessons learned through actions in Iraq for example which has a quite well armed poppulation makes for a tough time on an occupying force.

[Jarlaxle]

I am curious as to why you think only those in the armed forces should have them?

Tyrants prefer unarmed victims.

[numinus]

Intersting replies so far and thanks to those of you who took the time. It seems to me the consensus is that the current federal laws against the mentally ill and felons owning guns is adequate in principal while there are certainly flaws in the practice of the law as is seen in the public massacres America experiences all to often.

Numinus, we disagree based on what you posted. I think the second amendment covers quite well the legality of ordinary citizens owning firearms.
I am curious as to why you think only those in the armed forces should have them? As an otherwise law abiding citizen and resonsible gun owner should the actions of a few cause me to lose that right?

The second ammendment works for a nation employing militia as its primary defense from foreign aggression. That is simply not the case for the most powerful nation in the world.

The only use for a gun is to kill. A civilian has no business carrying a lethal weapon for private use.

[SW85]

The only use for a gun is to kill. A civilian has no business carrying a lethal weapon for private use.

Mmm, this is only true if the civilian has no business killing, which we already know isn't true.

He is perfectly entitled to kill, in defense of himself or others. Or in killing animals. And at any rate, the question at hand seems to be about owning weapons, not carrying them, a different question entirely.

[vyo476]

Mmm, this is only true if the civilian has no business killing, which we already know isn't true.

He is perfectly entitled to kill, in defense of himself or others. Or in killing animals. And at any rate, the question at hand seems to be about owning weapons, not carrying them, a different question entirely.

Agreed. Citizens don't have any business carrying guns until some other idiot decides it's his business to go on a rampage; while the law-abiding citizens get mowed down by the psycho who went through back-channels to obtain his firearm (something that will always be possible outside of a Big Brother state), you might start to think that letting a few of those law-abiding citizens carry guns would have been a good idea.

I suppose I've become something of a believer in the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" dynamic. Sure, accidents can and do happen with guns - but an accident while walking can leave you lying the middle of a busy street, or an accident while eating could leave you choking to death. Accidents happen with all manner of things and the answer almost always isn't "stop doing it!", it's "find ways to make it safer!" At least it is to me.

[Jarlaxle]

The second ammendment works for a nation employing militia as its primary defense from foreign aggression. That is simply not the case for the most powerful nation in the world.

The only use for a gun is to kill. A civilian has no business carrying a lethal weapon for private use.

Congratulations! That is the single DUMBEST thing I have seen or heard today!

[numinus]

Mmm, this is only true if the civilian has no business killing, which we already know isn't true.

He is perfectly entitled to kill, in defense of himself or others. Or in killing animals. And at any rate, the question at hand seems to be about owning weapons, not carrying them, a different question entirely.

No.

A civilian has no business killing -- only self-defense.

And for self-defense to be valid, it MUST conform with the principle of NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE -- meaning, you are only allowed to use the amount of force necessary to DETER your assailant, and if possible, save his life.

Oh, and possession, in the legal sense, implies use.

[numinus]

Congratulations! That is the single DUMBEST thing I have seen or heard today!

Curiously, you don't seem to know exactly why, eh?

Do not berate yourself too hard, though. Somehow, I don't expect comprehension to dawn on you soon.

[numinus]

Agreed. Citizens don't have any business carrying guns until some other idiot decides it's his business to go on a rampage; while the law-abiding citizens get mowed down by the psycho who went through back-channels to obtain his firearm (something that will always be possible outside of a Big Brother state), you might start to think that letting a few of those law-abiding citizens carry guns would have been a good idea.

I suppose I've become something of a believer in the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" dynamic. Sure, accidents can and do happen with guns - but an accident while walking can leave you lying the middle of a busy street, or an accident while eating could leave you choking to death. Accidents happen with all manner of things and the answer almost always isn't "stop doing it!", it's "find ways to make it safer!" At least it is to me.

And if only the military and police have guns, said idiot could go on a rampage holding only his dick for as long and as often as he pleases.

As I said, a gun has no other use but to kill. A person who possesses a gun, for whatever circumstance he imagines to use it, also possesses the intent to kill.

[Bunz]

No.

A civilian has no business killing -- only self-defense.

And for self-defense to be valid, it MUST conform with the principle of NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE -- meaning, you are only allowed to use the amount of force necessary to DETER your assailant, and if possible, save his life.

Oh, and possession, in the legal sense, implies use.

So, my hunting practices in an effort to feed my family should be outlawed because I am a civilian? I have never killed a human.

Also, the notion that guns are for souly for killing is wrong IMO. A gun is good for only one thing, pulling the trigger generally releases some sort of spring which pushes a firing pin forward with enough force to strike the primer of the round in the chamber therefore pushing a projectile(s) down a barrel. Anything outside of that is the responsibility of the human. A loaded gun left in the corner of a room for 100 years will not go off until someone or something manipulates the trigger to start the previously described mechanical chain of events.

[Bunz]

And if only the military and police have guns, said idiot could go on a rampage holding only his dick for as long and as often as he pleases.

As I said, a gun has no other use but to kill. A person who possesses a gun, for whatever circumstance he imagines to use it, also possesses the intent to kill.

I own several guns and quite a few have no practical purposes in its design that have nothing to do with killing or wounding. More like punching holes in paper or breaking clay pidgeons.

[vyo476]

And if only the military and police have guns, said idiot could go on a rampage holding only his dick for as long and as often as he pleases.

And how is it that you intend to make sure that only the military and the police have guns?

[Jarlaxle]

Curiously, you don't seem to know exactly why, eh?

Do not berate yourself too hard, though. Somehow, I don't expect comprehension to dawn on you soon.

Actually, I certainly know why your post is moronic. There are many reasons to own a gun...like, say, protection. My wife works late (finishes up at 2am today), carrying cash and credit card info. Yep, she carries a pistol (Makarov 9mm SA). Her best friend works late, often finishing up between midnight and 4am. Yep, she carries a pistol (.38 Chiefs Special). My uncle used to be a courier, sometimes carrying large amounts of cash. Yep, he carries a pistol (Walther .380, then a .44 Magnum, now a big .454 Casull). He's also an avid shooter, of pistols and big rifles, and loads his own ammo.

If the weather cooperates, we're going shooting this weekend. He thinks he finally has the loads perfect for his new Springfield Sledgahammer (S&W .500)--I just want to shoot his Holland & Holland elephant rifle, and see him shoot blocks out of the air with revolvers. :) My grandmother might join us with her late husbands old .45 pistol, and I know she'll want to shoot my uncle's bolt-action rifles.

[Jarlaxle]

And if only the military and police have guns, said idiot could go on a rampage holding only his dick for as long and as often as he pleases.

As I said, a gun has no other use but to kill. A person who possesses a gun, for whatever circumstance he imagines to use it, also possesses the intent to kill.

Congratulations! This is the dumbest thing I've read in weeks!

Are you trolling for kicks or are you actually brainwashed enough to believe this idiocy?

[vyo476]

Congratulations! This is the dumbest thing I've read in weeks!

Are you trolling for kicks or are you actually brainwashed enough to believe this idiocy?

Calm down. If you have an actual point, make it. Posts like this are entirely unnecessary.

[Jarlaxle]

My point is simple: he is essentially accusing myself and most of my family of premeditated murder.

[vyo476]

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you in the middle of a thread. Just try to keep your cool.

[numinus]

So, my hunting practices in an effort to feed my family should be outlawed because I am a civilian? I have never killed a human.

What dishonest nonsense!

Humans have perfected agriculture more than 5 thousand years ago and you have the cheek to suggest your gun is meant to feed your family?

Also, the notion that guns are for souly for killing is wrong IMO. A gun is good for only one thing, pulling the trigger generally releases some sort of spring which pushes a firing pin forward with enough force to strike the primer of the round in the chamber therefore pushing a projectile(s) down a barrel. Anything outside of that is the responsibility of the human. A loaded gun left in the corner of a room for 100 years will not go off until someone or something manipulates the trigger to start the previously described mechanical chain of events.

Nonsense.

A hammer is made to drive nails. That is its purpose. It can be used to bash your ignorant skull in, but that is not the purpose for which it was made.

Same can be said about a lot of everyday things -- a baseball bat, a meat cleaver, a chain saw, etc. etc.

A gun, on the other hand, was never meant for anything except to be fired at someone else. It wasn't made so that it sits in a corner for 100 years. It wasn't made to protect yourself from an assailant. And it certainly wasn't made so that you can feed your family.

Multiply the destructive effect of a gun a thousand times over, and you have a nuke. Now, try peddling the nonsense that the us nuke stockpile was made to protect you and a million others like you and you would have a fair appreciation of what I'm talking about.

[numinus]

I own several guns and quite a few have no practical purposes in its design that have nothing to do with killing or wounding. More like punching holes in paper or breaking clay pidgeons.

Paper that just happen to have the form of a human being drawn on it, hmmm? And they have cross-hairs drawn on where the vital points of a human being should be in order to kill, eh?

I know exactly what you mean.

[numinus]

And how is it that you intend to make sure that only the military and the police have guns?

By imposing strict rules on the gun maker.

[numinus]

Actually, I certainly know why your post is moronic. There are many reasons to own a gun...like, say, protection. My wife works late (finishes up at 2am today), carrying cash and credit card info. Yep, she carries a pistol (Makarov 9mm SA). Her best friend works late, often finishing up between midnight and 4am. Yep, she carries a pistol (.38 Chiefs Special). My uncle used to be a courier, sometimes carrying large amounts of cash. Yep, he carries a pistol (Walther .380, then a .44 Magnum, now a big .454 Casull). He's also an avid shooter, of pistols and big rifles, and loads his own ammo.

If the weather cooperates, we're going shooting this weekend. He thinks he finally has the loads perfect for his new Springfield Sledgahammer (S&W .500)--I just want to shoot his Holland & Holland elephant rifle, and see him shoot blocks out of the air with revolvers. :) My grandmother might join us with her late husbands old .45 pistol, and I know she'll want to shoot my uncle's bolt-action rifles.

And what exactly in the design of a gun that is meant to protect its bearer, eh? A kevlar body vest, I can understand. But a hand gun?

It is meant for only one thing -- to kill your would-be assailant before he kills you. And if you were to admit this fact in a court of law, your entire self-defense nonsense falls apart.

[numinus]

Congratulations! This is the dumbest thing I've read in weeks!

Are you trolling for kicks or are you actually brainwashed enough to believe this idiocy?

Let me explain to you the mechanics of debate in a way that even a 5 yr old can understand.

You are meant to choose a position and say why you chose such a position -- preferably, using facts and logic.

Laughing like a hyena isn't debate. And since you have laughed in this forum for more times than you actually contributing anything intellectual in the discussion -- I think you are better off using your gun on your silly head.

[numinus]

My point is simple: he is essentially accusing myself and most of my family of premeditated murder.

I am accusing you of no such thing.

Pre-meditation requires rational thought. There is nothing in what you say that suggests rational thought.

[Jarlaxle]

And what exactly in the design of a gun that is meant to protect its bearer, eh? A kevlar body vest, I can understand. But a hand gun?

I'm not sure I can dumb this down to your level, but I'll try. A would-be rapist will quite probably rethink his plan if he finds himself staring down the barrel of a cocked pistol. If he doesn't...aim for center mass, keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.

It is meant for only one thing -- to kill your would-be assailant before he kills you. And if you were to admit this fact in a court of law, your entire self-defense nonsense falls apart.

No. It is meant to STOP the attacker, recognized as self-defence in every state. If he does not survive...then he doesn't.

[Jarlaxle]

Let me explain to you the mechanics of debate in a way that even a 5 yr old can understand.

You are meant to choose a position and say why you chose such a position -- preferably, using facts and logic.

Of course. But wait..."facts" and "logic" are two things completely alien to you (along with "intelligence" and "sanity"). You wouldn't know them if you tripped over them.

Laughing like a hyena isn't debate. And since you have laughed in this forum for more times than you actually contributing anything intellectual in the discussion -- I think you are better off using your gun on your silly head.

You sound like a 3-year-old. Good job!

[Jarlaxle]

And hey, just got an e-mail from my uncle: Good to go this weekend! He has 30 rounds for his elephant gun, 100 for his Sledge, about 500 .44 Magnums, and a case of 7.92mm Mauser ammo. He thinks he has a load worked out for the Makarov, too.

[numinus]

I'm not sure I can dumb this down to your level, but I'll try. A would-be rapist will quite probably rethink his plan if he finds himself staring down the barrel of a cocked pistol. If he doesn't...aim for center mass, keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.

Yep. That would do it, I suppose. Ready or not, here I come!

Unfortunately, I'm not sure all rapists are as dumb as you.

No. It is meant to STOP the attacker, recognized as self-defence in every state. If he does not survive...then he doesn't.

Great! Another cowboy redneck.

Heee-Haw!

[numinus]

Of course. But wait..."facts" and "logic" are two things completely alien to you (along with "intelligence" and "sanity"). You wouldn't know them if you tripped over them.



You sound like a 3-year-old. Good job!

Heeee-Haw!

[Jarlaxle]

So, you have nothing left except personal attacks from about the level of a three-year-old? Yep, about what I figured.

Please do not ever breed under any circumstances.

[Bunz]

What dishonest nonsense!

Humans have perfected agriculture more than 5 thousand years ago and you have the cheek to suggest your gun is meant to feed your family?

The suggestion that I am being at all dishonest is quite ignorant on your part. There is no agriculture where I live. The nearest farm is a 375mile airplane trip away. I need a gun to feed my family, YES. I dont have the option of calling pizza hut.

A gun, on the other hand, was never meant for anything except to be fired at someone else. It wasn't made so that it sits in a corner for 100 years. It wasn't made to protect yourself from an assailant. And it certainly wasn't made so that you can feed your family.

Again your notion that guns are only designed to shoot humans is a completely ignorant argument and you obviously have little concept about how a gun works, the different types and thier purposes.
A hammer is made to drive nails. That is its purpose. It can be used to bash your ignorant skull in, but that is not the purpose for which it was made.

Same can be said about a lot of everyday things -- a baseball bat, a meat cleaver, a chain saw, etc. etc
Thank you for proving my point. Which I will remind you that I explained what the mechanical design of guns do. Much the same as a hammer is designed to pound nails, it is the responsibility of the user of its actual use. By your argument here we shouldnt have access to any of the items you mentioned because someone could use them beyond thier intended purpose. No more pencil or pens in society either, because although they are designed to write with, someone could jab it into another human.
Also, you need not mention anything about bashing my ignorant skull in with any object. It is quite unbecoming. Until you can say something like that to ones face it is pointless. I doubt you would have the guts to do so anyways, and if you did, it wouldnt show so much courage as it would a lack of brains.

[Bunz]

Paper that just happen to have the form of a human being drawn on it, hmmm? And they have cross-hairs drawn on where the vital points of a human being should be in order to kill, eh?

I know exactly what you mean.
I dont shoot at human shaped targets, and your suggestion that I do is false and ignorant. For the far majority it is a simple bullseye with scoring rings. The ones who generally shoot at human shaped targets are the police and military forces. The only ones who by your suggestion should have guns.
Am I the only one who thinks that letting only the people who regularly practice on human targets have guns is generally unwise?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ok Folks,
Pretty simple question. Who should not be able to buy firearms, and why?

People. Because they tend to shoot things--themselves, others, animals, cell towers, and the like.

[numinus]

So, you have nothing left except personal attacks from about the level of a three-year-old? Yep, about what I figured.

Please do not ever breed under any circumstances.

I just refuted your self-defense nonsense, fyi.

Any law-enforcement personnel would point out that among the weapons available in the market today, the gun is the most ill-suited for self-defense, especially for rape.

It requires a lot of technical proficiency to handle and use properly.

It is next to useless in close-quarter combat. Its nature is more apt for attack than defense.

It acts with deadly force, ALWAYS. Once fired, the user has absolutely no control over the bullet's trajectory.

And last, but not least -- its availability to the general public has ABSOLUTELY NO VERIFIABLE STATISTICAL CORRELATION WITH CRIME DETERENCE. In fact, a good number of crimes wouldn't have been possible if guns were simply unavailable to the general public. Any cop would tell you this.

These are simple and very direct reasons for not allowing guns to a private citizen -- something that would never occur to a redneck cowboy, especially one whose brain functions have simply atrophied through years of neglect.

[numinus]

I dont shoot at human shaped targets, and your suggestion that I do is false and ignorant. For the far majority it is a simple bullseye with scoring rings. The ones who generally shoot at human shaped targets are the police and military forces. The only ones who by your suggestion should have guns.
Am I the only one who thinks that letting only the people who regularly practice on human targets have guns is generally unwise?

Your mind operates on a hopelessly meandering logic.

The ability to use a gun for PROTECTION, for one's self or others, requires a proficiency that takes years of rigid training -- the kind of training available to law enforcement personnel. The very nature of a gun's use requires very strict adherence to rules of engagement -- something that applies only to law enforcement and military personnel.

Btw, your dishonesty is plain. Do you use your gun to feed your family or shoot at paper targets with cross-hairs and scoring rings, hmmm? I don't know why anyone would expect an honest answer from you, but just the same, the question needed to be asked.

[numinus]

The suggestion that I am being at all dishonest is quite ignorant on your part. There is no agriculture where I live. The nearest farm is a 375mile airplane trip away. I need a gun to feed my family, YES. I dont have the option of calling pizza hut.

If food is not readily available where you live, then it follows that a permanent law-enforcement in your vicinity would be unnecessary. Hence, your question would be irrelevant to your unique situation.

Again your notion that guns are only designed to shoot humans is a completely ignorant argument and you obviously have little concept about how a gun works, the different types and thier purposes.

I have more knowledge of guns than you would realize. My work takes me to places where only bandits and rebels would go. From experience, the false notion of protection from carrying a gun is amply demonstrated there.

People with guns have a very large distrust and a disproportionately small tolerance for other people with guns.

I do not even have a gun in my own home. My wife would have none of that. I don't even know if any gun is absolutely child-proof. If it were, then a hs classmate of mine would still be alive today and his best friend, the one who accidentally killed him while handling a firearm, wouldn't be carrying all that guilt up to now.

Thank you for proving my point. Which I will remind you that I explained what the mechanical design of guns do. Much the same as a hammer is designed to pound nails, it is the responsibility of the user of its actual use. By your argument here we shouldnt have access to any of the items you mentioned because someone could use them beyond thier intended purpose. No more pencil or pens in society either, because although they are designed to write with, someone could jab it into another human.
Also, you need not mention anything about bashing my ignorant skull in with any object. It is quite unbecoming. Until you can say something like that to ones face it is pointless. I doubt you would have the guts to do so anyways, and if you did, it wouldnt show so much courage as it would a lack of brains.

You have proven nothing.

A user has absolutely no control of a bullet's trajectory after it is fired. And when a weapon's effectivity is judged by the degree of control by its wielder, especially when 'self-defense' is the operative word, the gun is the MOST INEFFECTIVE.

That is plain facts and logic for you.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I read your posts on this thread, Nums, and I gotta give you recognition for two things: one is that you are incessant--I don't know if that's good or not though, and two is that you know less about more things than almost anybody I've ever seen post on this site.

[Pidgey]

I read your posts on this thread, Nums, and I gotta give you recognition for two things: one is that you are incessant--I don't know if that's good or not though, and two is that you know less about more things than almost anybody I've ever seen post on this site.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinus

Pidgey

[Mare Tranquillity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinus

Pidgey

That is a terrible insult to Whoopi Goldberg!

[Pidgey]

That is a terrible insult to Whoopi Goldberg!Whoops!

Pidgey

[Jarlaxle]

I just refuted your self-defense nonsense, fyi.

Only in the dark, fetid depth of your "mind".

Any law-enforcement personnel would point out that among the weapons available in the market today, the gun is the most ill-suited for self-defense, especially for rape.

Horse manure.

It requires a lot of technical proficiency to handle and use properly.

Certainly...one reason my uncle has fired over 250,000 rounds (that's not a typo) in his life.

It is next to useless in close-quarter combat. Its nature is more apt for attack than defense.

Which is why it should be used to stop an attacker BEFORE he gets to "close quarters".

It acts with deadly force, ALWAYS. Once fired, the user has absolutely no control over the bullet's trajectory.

OK...is there actually a point to this?

And last, but not least -- its availability to the general public has ABSOLUTELY NO VERIFIABLE STATISTICAL CORRELATION WITH CRIME DETERENCE. In fact, a good number of crimes wouldn't have been possible if guns were simply unavailable to the general public. Any cop would tell you this.

Absolutely correct! Gun prohibition has absolutely no correlation with reducing crime! Thank you for making my point! Case in point: Washington DC, where guns are essentially banned, is a war zone.

These are simple and very direct reasons for not allowing guns to a private citizen -- something that would never occur to a redneck cowboy, especially one whose brain functions have simply atrophied through years of neglect.

Yet another personal attack (again, at about the level of a three-year-old) from numbnuts, more blindly flailing away in the dark, hoping to stumble on something intelligent.

PS--the best shots in the country are not cops.

[Bunz]

Btw, your dishonesty is plain. Do you use your gun to feed your family or shoot at paper targets with cross-hairs and scoring rings, hmmm? I don't know why anyone would expect an honest answer from you, but just the same, the question needed to be asked.

Well like any responsible hunter, I go out and make sure my guns work properly before attempting to hunt with them. It wouldnt be wise for someone to go out with a scoped rifle without any idea where the sighting point is. But then again, having knowledge about guns should have taught you that long ago.

[Bunz]

Numinus,
If food is not readily available where you live, then it follows that a permanent law-enforcement in your vicinity would be unnecessary. Hence, your question would be irrelevant to your unique situation.

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. I live in western Alaska, go to wiki and look up the Bush Alaska article and it might give you some insight. As for permanent law enforcement, in my village we do have law enforcement. There are others nearby who have none. So if a murder were to happen then the Alaska State Troopers would have to fly out to investigate at the next opportunity considering weather.
I have more knowledge of guns than you would realize. My work takes me to places where only bandits and rebels would go. From experience, the false notion of protection from carrying a gun is amply demonstrated there.

People with guns have a very large distrust and a disproportionately small tolerance for other people with guns.

I do not even have a gun in my own home. My wife would have none of that. I don't even know if any gun is absolutely child-proof. If it were, then a hs classmate of mine would still be alive today and his best friend, the one who accidentally killed him while handling a firearm, wouldn't be carrying all that guilt up to now.
Firstly, I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. But if someone in high school accidently shoots thier friend, it says a few things to me.
A, that person and thier parents should be held liable for the actions of someone with a gun in thier hands.
B. Of course no gun is idiot proof, I dont think anyone would disagree. But again, it is the responsibility of the person in possession to keep the barrel in a safe direction at all times.
C. I hope your friend does carry guilt with him and takes the time to teach kids about the very simple safety rules of being around firearms. He took the life of someone through his own ignorant and negligent actions.
A user has absolutely no control of a bullet's trajectory after it is fired. And when a weapon's effectivity is judged by the degree of control by its wielder, especially when 'self-defense' is the operative word, the gun is the MOST INEFFECTIVE.

Again, it is the responsibility of the user to ensure the business end of a gun is pointed in a safe direction with a proper backstop. Anyone who shoots rounds into the air or in a direction not known to be safe is an idiot and probably took gun lessons from you.

[numinus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinus

Pidgey

I had this in mind but I suppose one cannot blame you entirely if you cannot comprehend anything more substantive than comicbooks.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=numinous

Numinous is a Latin term coined by German theologian Rudolf Otto to describe that which is wholly other. The numinous is the mysterium tremendum et fascinans that leads in different cases to belief in deities, the supernatural, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent.
The word was used by Otto in his book Das Heilige (1917; translated as The Idea of the Holy, 1923). Etymologically, it comes from the Latin word numen, which originally and literally meant "nodding", but was associated with meanings of "command" or "divine majesty". Otto formed the word numinous from numen in a manner analogous to the derivation of ominous from omen.

Numinous was an important concept in the writings of Carl Jung and C. S. Lewis. The notion of the numinous and the wholly other were central to the religious studies of Mircea Eliade. It was also used by Carl Sagan in his book Contact.

Carlos Castaneda deals with a related concept in his Don Juan Matus' books, which purport to describe his experiences among native American shamans, but whose factual basis now appears largely discredited. This is the 'nagual' which seems to correspond to an idea of something wholly other, or at least to something our neural net has not yet fit into a template or cookie-cutter 'recognition' (Casteneda's so-called 'tonal'). The term is also used in Jacques Derrida's book The Gift of Death in reference to his own idea of the other, and in conversation with Otto's ideas.

In order to clarify the term in layman's language it may be viewed as "the intense feeling of unknowingly knowing that there is something which cannot be seen." And this knowing can "befall" or overcome a person at any time and in any place - in a cathedral; next to a silent stream; on a lonely road; early in the morning or in the face of a beautiful sunset.

The idea is not necessarily a religious one: noted atheist Christopher Hitchens has discussed the importance of separating the numinous from the supernatural.

[numinus]

I read your posts on this thread, Nums, and I gotta give you recognition for two things: one is that you are incessant--I don't know if that's good or not though, and two is that you know less about more things than almost anybody I've ever seen post on this site.

Coming from someone as ignorant and bigotted as you, you cannot begin to fathom how comforting that sounds.

[numinus]

Only in the dark, fetid depth of your "mind".

You're the one infatuated with guns and I'm the one with a 'dark, fetid' mind? What absolute nonsense.

Horse manure.

And you would know about horse manure, eh.

HEE-HAW!

Certainly...one reason my uncle has fired over 250,000 rounds (that's not a typo) in his life.

Hooliganism runs in your family, it seems.

Which is why it should be used to stop an attacker BEFORE he gets to "close quarters".

"Excuse me, ma'm but i'm going to rape you in a few minutes."

HEE-HAW!

OK...is there actually a point to this?

There is but it is beyond your puny capabilities, I'm afraid.

A weapon's effectivity, especially for self-defense, depends on DEGREES OF CONTROL. Otherwise, how can one adhere to the principle of NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE, hmmm?

Duh?

Absolutely correct! Gun prohibition has absolutely no correlation with reducing crime! Thank you for making my point! Case in point: Washington DC, where guns are essentially banned, is a war zone.

I didn't say 'prohibition', did I?

HEE-HAW!

Yet another personal attack (again, at about the level of a three-year-old) from numbnuts, more blindly flailing away in the dark, hoping to stumble on something intelligent.

I do not propose to insult you other than tell you what you actually are.

PS--the best shots in the country are not cops.

Not when the target shoots back.

[numinus]

Well like any responsible hunter, I go out and make sure my guns work properly before attempting to hunt with them. It wouldnt be wise for someone to go out with a scoped rifle without any idea where the sighting point is. But then again, having knowledge about guns should have taught you that long ago.

What patent dishonesty!

And you just happen to callibrate your gun's scope on targets with SCORING RINGS? You're lies have been obvious since you said you hunt to feed your family. There is no sense in pretending that your lies would amount to anything.

[PLC1]

What patent dishonesty!

And you just happen to callibrate your gun's scope on targets with SCORING RINGS? You're lies have been obvious since you said you hunt to feed your family. There is no sense in pretending that your lies would amount to anything.

You might want to check out Bunz's location before making any such sweeping commentary. (http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/basics.htm)
You know, before you go saying someone else is lying or is ignorant, or whatever, try doing a search or two to update your own information.

[numinus]

Numinus,

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. I live in western Alaska, go to wiki and look up the Bush Alaska article and it might give you some insight. As for permanent law enforcement, in my village we do have law enforcement. There are others nearby who have none. So if a murder were to happen then the Alaska State Troopers would have to fly out to investigate at the next opportunity considering weather.

As I said, the right to bear arms stems from the absence of a professional military and police -- during the conception of union as it is where you live.

Firstly, I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. But if someone in high school accidently shoots thier friend, it says a few things to me.
A, that person and thier parents should be held liable for the actions of someone with a gun in thier hands.
B. Of course no gun is idiot proof, I dont think anyone would disagree. But again, it is the responsibility of the person in possession to keep the barrel in a safe direction at all times.
C. I hope your friend does carry guilt with him and takes the time to teach kids about the very simple safety rules of being around firearms. He took the life of someone through his own ignorant and negligent actions.

Correct. And this tragedy is repeated year after year in a more or less constant statistical occurence. You would imagine that, with all your talk of responsibility and education in gun use, the figures should be getting less and less to the point where it is immaterial. No such luck, Im afraid.

Again, it is the responsibility of the user to ensure the business end of a gun is pointed in a safe direction with a proper backstop. Anyone who shoots rounds into the air or in a direction not known to be safe is an idiot and probably took gun lessons from you.

http://www.allcountries.org/gun_deaths_by_country.html

Only a cowboy redneck would choose to ignore facts, especially when the issue involves their favorite passtime -- shooting the hell out of anything that moves.

[numinus]

You might want to check out Bunz's location before making any such sweeping commentary. (http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/basics.htm)
You know, before you go saying someone else is lying or is ignorant, or whatever, try doing a search or two to update your own information.

And you might want to actually employ some critical thought on what he is saying.

Using targets with SCORING RINGS should suggest to any reasonable individual that he wasn't callibrating his scope -- hence the lie he was blatantly peddling in this thread.

[PLC1]

And you might want to actually employ some critical thought on what he is saying.

Using targets with SCORING RINGS should suggest to any reasonable individual that he wasn't callibrating his scope -- hence the lie he was blatantly peddling in this thread.

You don't have a whole lot of experience with rifles, do you?

If you're going to hunt for meat, it is a good idea to sight in the rifle first, and to do a little target practice so that you hit what you aim at.

You don't just pick up a rifle and blast away. It takes skill to get the bullet where you want it.

[numinus]

You don't have a whole lot of experience with rifles, do you?

If you're going to hunt for meat, it is a good idea to sight in the rifle first, and to do a little target practice so that you hit what you aim at.

You don't just pick up a rifle and blast away. It takes skill to get the bullet where you want it.

Nonsense.

To callibrate a rifle scope, you merely need to sight at a suitably small target from a pre-determined distance. The downward displacement of a bullet fired is a mathematical function of the eccentricity of the scope's lens axis and the horizontal distance.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR TARGETS WITH SCORING RINGS.

[PLC1]

Nonsense.

To callibrate a rifle scope, you merely need to sight at a suitably small target from a pre-determined distance. The downward displacement of a bullet fired is a mathematical function of the eccentricity of the scope's lens axis and the horizontal distance.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR TARGETS WITH SCORING RINGS.

No, not unless you want to get to where you can actually hit someting with your rifle.

Did you ever get around to checking out Bunz's location, and how it might relate to his experience with and attitude toward rifles?

Ever fire a rifle yourself?

[dahermit]

And you might want to actually employ some critical thought on what he is saying.

Using targets with SCORING RINGS should suggest to any reasonable individual that he wasn't callibrating his scope -- hence the lie he was blatantly peddling in this thread.
As a life long firearm owner who has zeroed in many firearms, scoring rings are used to zero in a rifle (no one experienced with firearms calls zeroing in "calibrating a scope"). Scoring rings exist on most targets because the targets are multi-use items...for competition or zeroing in a rifle. For your information, a five-shot group is usually shot on the target and then the scope's adjustments are used to bring the next shot or group to the desired point of aim.

It is quite obvious to me that you wish to sound knowledgeable about firearms, but sound as ridicules as I would sound if I tried to pass my self off as a physicist. Your lack of knowledge of all elements of firearms is painfully obvious.

[Jarlaxle]

You're the one infatuated with guns and I'm the one with a 'dark, fetid' mind? What absolute nonsense.


You REALLY need to stop projecting your own faults onm the rest of the world. Seek professional help.

And you would know about horse manure, eh.

HEE-HAW!

More infantile personal attacks...nothing new here.

Hooliganism runs in your family, it seems.

Yet more infantile personal attacks...again, nothing new and nothing actually requiring thought on nummi's part.

"Excuse me, ma'm but i'm going to rape you in a few minutes."

HEE-HAW!

Are you baked?

There is but it is beyond your puny capabilities, I'm afraid.

Again, you MUST stop projecting your own inadequacies on others!

A weapon's effectivity, especially for self-defense, depends on DEGREES OF CONTROL. Otherwise, how can one adhere to the principle of NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE, hmmm?

Yet more five-dollar words from nummi's five-cent mind, full, of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Duh?

I didn't say 'prohibition', did I?p

Yes, you certainly did.

HEE-HAW!

I'm glad you find yourself so amusing.


I do not propose to insult you other than tell you what you actually are.

Right. Smoke another one, dumbass.

Not when the target shoots back.

Yet more proof (as if any was needed) that you couldn't buy a clue if you won the lottery.

[Jarlaxle]

Scoring rings exist on most targets because the targets are multi-use items...for competition or zeroing in a rifle

They also make figuring the adjustments much easier, since the exact amount of error is easy to determine...been there, done that. You CAN zero in without them (my uncle has), but it's a heck of a lot easier with them.

Also, it's nice for figuring bullet drop at various distances--shoot at targets from, say, 50, 100, 200, and 250 yards, and you can get a pretty good idea of the bullet's exact flight path.

Speaking of which, my uncle has some ammo ready (he hand-loads) for his elephant rifle...shooting it tomorrow, I think.

[numinus]

No, not unless you want to get to where you can actually hit someting with your rifle.

That is exactly how you callibrate your rifle scope. The principle applies to precise geodetic instruments as well, fyi.

Did you ever get around to checking out Bunz's location, and how it might relate to his experience with and attitude toward rifles?

How is it relevant, hmmm?

Do you wish me to discuss the differences between alaska and new york vis-a-vis the 'right' to bear firearms.

Ever fire a rifle yourself?

Of course.

[numinus]

As a life long firearm owner who has zeroed in many firearms, scoring rings are used to zero in a rifle (no one experienced with firearms calls zeroing in "calibrating a scope").

Tell me how that would make any difference on the lens equations, hmmm?

Scoring rings exist on most targets because the targets are multi-use items...for competition or zeroing in a rifle. For your information, a five-shot group is usually shot on the target and then the scope's adjustments are used to bring the next shot or group to the desired point of aim.

How is that different from what I said, hmmm?

Isn't a rifle scope merely a compound lens -- the accuracy of which is dependent on its longitudinal axis?

And do you even know why you need 5 shots? I'll give you a hint -- it has something to do with standard deviations.

It is quite obvious to me that you wish to sound knowledgeable about firearms, but sound as ridicules as I would sound if I tried to pass my self off as a physicist. Your lack of knowledge of all elements of firearms is painfully obvious.

The scope of a rifle is no different from the telescope of a precise geodetic instrument -- they are all compound lenses, they have cross-hairs and most often fiducial marks, actual distances are functions of the lens constant, and last, but not the least, they are adjusted for systematic and statistical errors.

Other than the use of terms, would you mind telling me exactly where I said anything wrong.

Oh, btw, callibrating a telescope requires a target that does not warp easily. It would be better to forgo the scoring rings.

[numinus]

You REALLY need to stop projecting your own faults onm the rest of the world. Seek professional help.

Try to look at demographics on firearm related crimes and you can see that there is precious little that separates you from a violent felon.

More infantile personal attacks...nothing new here.

As I recall, the first few posts you made in this forum where nothing but personal attacks. So who exactly is projecting, eh?

Yet more infantile personal attacks...again, nothing new and nothing actually requiring thought on nummi's part.

You actually think responding to your posts require any thought? You overestimate your capabilities.

Are you baked?

No, but I see you are, since you missed the obvious point -- that a rapist wouldn't tell his victim he is planning to rape her. Unless of course, the rapist is you.

Again, you MUST stop projecting your own inadequacies on others!

You're the gun enthusiast and I'm the one with inadequacies???

Try penile anxiety.

Yet more five-dollar words from nummi's five-cent mind, full, of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I'm sure a cowboy redneck wouldn't know anything about non-culpable self-defense. Just start shooting and think later. HEE HAW!

Yes, you certainly did.

I see you're illiterate as well.

I'm glad you find yourself so amusing.

I find YOU amusing. HEE HAW!

Right. Smoke another one, dumbass.

All you can think of is 'dumbass'? I hope you didn't hurt yourself much thinking that up.

Yet more proof (as if any was needed) that you couldn't buy a clue if you won the lottery.

Just as I thought. No intellectual substance, whatsoever.

[numinus]

They also make figuring the adjustments much easier, since the exact amount of error is easy to determine...been there, done that. You CAN zero in without them (my uncle has), but it's a heck of a lot easier with them.

Also, it's nice for figuring bullet drop at various distances--shoot at targets from, say, 50, 100, 200, and 250 yards, and you can get a pretty good idea of the bullet's exact flight path.

Speaking of which, my uncle has some ammo ready (he hand-loads) for his elephant rifle...shooting it tomorrow, I think.

That's what fiducial marks are for. At least you're uncle is using his head.

[Jarlaxle]

Try to look at demographics on firearm related crimes and you can see that there is precious little that separates you from a violent felon.

Are you stoned or stupid?

As I recall, the first few posts you made in this forum where nothing but personal attacks. So who exactly is projecting, eh?

Yet again: are you stoned or stupid?

You actually think responding to your posts require any thought? You overestimate your capabilities.

More projection.

No, but I see you are, since you missed the obvious point -- that a rapist wouldn't tell his victim he is planning to rape her. Unless of course, the rapist is you.

Are you baked, are you just trolling for kicks, or are you actually THIS ****ING STUPID?

You're the gun enthusiast and I'm the one with inadequacies???

More projection. Seek professional help.

Try penile anxiety.

You seem to be obsessed here...is there something in your past we should know about? Maybe involving a priest?

I'm sure a cowboy redneck wouldn't know anything about non-culpable self-defense. Just start shooting and think later. HEE HAW!

More asinine projection. Seek professional help.

I see you're illiterate as well.

Are you baked, stupid, or just trolling for kicks?

I find YOU amusing. HEE HAW!

Try cutting back on the drugs.

All you can think of is 'dumbass'? I hope you didn't hurt yourself much thinking that up.

You are very plainly a dumbass.

Just as I thought. No intellectual substance, whatsoever.

More projection. Youy really need to see a head shrinker about your problems.

Smoke another doobie, dimbulb.

[dahermit]

It should be painfully obvious by now that Numinus is a pseudo-intellectual. He has no knowledge of firearms or anything else. He has however, an excess of time and access to a computer. His motive for posting here is most likely a desire to garner responses to his nonsense(trolling). He is likely a high school student who fancies himself a skilled debtor. He will continue to post as long as he can draw people into responding to him.

As Charles Manson did, he will use large words and terms that are intended to be confused with intellectualism. However, if you carefully consider what he says, you will surely conclude that most of what he says is gibberish. (...callibrating a telescope requires a target that does not warp easily..")

Lets give him the last word and ignore him from now on and he will eventually go back to trolling on "my space" with the rest of the children his age.

[Mare Tranquillity]

It should be painfully obvious by now that Numinus is a pseudo-intellectual. He has no knowledge of firearms or anything else. He has however, an excess of time and access to a computer. His motive for posting here is most likely a desire to garner responses to his nonsense(trolling). He is likely a high school student who fancies himself a skilled debtor. He will continue to post as long as he can draw people into responding to him.

As Charles Manson did, he will use large words and terms that are intended to be confused with intellectualism. However, if you carefully consider what he says, you will surely conclude that most of what he says is gibberish. (...callibrating a telescope requires a target that does not warp easily..")

Lets give him the last word and ignore him from now on and he will eventually go back to trolling on "my space" with the rest of the children his age.

Hear, hear!

[9sublime]

Jaraxle and Numinus, this is so infantile its untrue. I know that when someone accuses you of penile inadequacy its very hard to back down on the internet, but just be the bigger man.

[Jarlaxle]

I don't give a damn about that...I object a good deal more to the unceacing personal attacks, including (but not limited to) calling my wife stupid, calling me a rapist, in addition, of course, to accusing her, myself, and my uncle of premeditated murder.

[9sublime]

Don't get angry - get even through destroying his ridiculous positions through debate.

[numinus]

It should be painfully obvious by now that Numinus is a pseudo-intellectual. He has no knowledge of firearms or anything else.

Since when is a knowledge of firearms considered an intellectual pursuit, hmmm?

He has however, an excess of time and access to a computer. His motive for posting here is most likely a desire to garner responses to his nonsense(trolling). He is likely a high school student

I'm a hs student!? I'm flattered.

who fancies himself a skilled debtor.

LOL

You mean I have skill in obtaining debts?

He will continue to post as long as he can draw people into responding to him.

Nope. I will continue to post as long as morons continue to post.

As Charles Manson did, he will use large words and terms that are intended to be confused with intellectualism. However, if you carefully consider what he says, you will surely conclude that most of what he says is gibberish. (...callibrating a telescope requires a target that does not warp easily..")

If your target moves or deforms upon impact (as in paper targets with scoring rings), how can you use it for precise adjustments, hmmm?

Duh?

Lets give him the last word and ignore him from now on and he will eventually go back to trolling on "my space" with the rest of the children his age.

That's a good idea.

[numinus]

I don't give a damn about that...I object a good deal more to the unceacing personal attacks, including (but not limited to) calling my wife stupid, calling me a rapist, in addition, of course, to accusing her, myself, and my uncle of premeditated murder.

As I recall, you had no problems INITIATING personal attacks on me.

Or did you honestly think that your posts, in themselves, merit any response from me?

Grow up.

[numinus]

Don't get angry - get even through destroying his ridiculous positions through debate.

More like bash his head against a wall.

You haven't had much success 'destroying my ridiculous positions'. What makes you think he would have better luck, hmmm?

[dahermit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dahermit
who fancies himself a skilled debtor.

LOL

You mean I have skill in obtaining debts?I misspelled debater. It must have been the dreaded effect of "target warp". You are right about "target warp", I cannot count the times I could not sight in a hunting rifle because of its effect.

[invest07]

The best defense against crime and the tyranny of government is an informed and armed populace.

Teachers should be encouraged to pack and whether or not a specific teacher is packing should be kept a secret. This should stifle schoolhouse shootings.

Private citizens should be allowed to pack so long as they do not physically display the firearm. That way a mugger would never know.

Laws concerning what is justifiable homicide should be reviewed and updated to allow private citiziens to defend themselves and their property with force, as necessary. Fleeing felon laws especially need an update.

Our present system of screening for firearm sales works and works well, when it is enforced. Convicted felons lose certain civil rights and losing firearm ownership rights is consistent with this punishment. Anyone using or displaying a firearm in an unsafe manner should recieve a ticket from a cop, same as a traffic ticket.

If you are serious about controlling crime, an armed citizenry is the most effective method.

[Jarlaxle]

If your target moves or deforms upon impact (as in paper targets with scoring rings), how can you use it for precise adjustments, hmmm?

You have clearly never used a paper target. If secured properly (far from difficult), it will not move when hit.

[Bunz]

You might want to check out Bunz's location before making any such sweeping commentary. (http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/basics.htm)
You know, before you go saying someone else is lying or is ignorant, or whatever, try doing a search or two to update your own information.

Geez PLC1,
I was afraid to click that link for a second. I was worried it would show a google earth image of my house. Interesting link though, thanks for posting it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Geez PLC1,
I was afraid to click that link for a second. I was worried it would show a google earth image of my house. Interesting link though, thanks for posting it.

Actually, we did Google you and the picture showed you standing on your back porch, naked, peeing over the edge. We decided that wasn't the best way to show you so we went with PLC1's post.

[vyo476]

Actually, we did Google you and the picture showed you standing on your back porch, naked, peeing over the edge. We decided that wasn't the best way to show you so we went with PLC1's post.

But don't worry; we'll take that other photo and perform any number of Photoshop manipulations on it before creating a slideshow-video, with Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven playing in the background, and posting it online. Within a week it'll be the most popular video on Youtube. Congrats, you're going to be a star.

[PLC1]

But don't worry; we'll take that other photo and perform any number of Photoshop manipulations on it before creating a slideshow-video, with Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven playing in the background, and posting it online. Within a week it'll be the most popular video on Youtube. Congrats, you're going to be a star.

It's amazing the resolution you can get on GoogleEarth, isn't it?:D

[numinus]

You have clearly never used a paper target. If secured properly (far from difficult), it will not move when hit.

A paper target that doesn't move upon the impact of a bullet!?

And a centimeter error in a target of 100 meters will result in how much in a kilometer? Do the math.

[numinus]

I misspelled debater. It must have been the dreaded effect of "target warp". You are right about "target warp", I cannot count the times I could not sight in a hunting rifle because of its effect.

If you are going to criticize someone, you might as well make sure your criticism isn't nonsense, eh?

[numinus]

The best defense against crime and the tyranny of government is an informed and armed populace.

You mean the right to bear arms is intended to protect you from your own government????

That is an armed insurrection, if I'm not mistaken.

[vyo476]

You mean the right to bear arms is intended to protect you from your own government????

That is an armed insurrection, if I'm not mistaken.

Screwy, isn't it? Government policies designed to allow people to combat government policies? Nonetheless, in the context of the American Revolution and the subsequent formation of this country, it makes perfect sense. The same people who created the national government rule of America destroyed the British colonial rule of America - British colonial rule which gave every appearance of being perfectly legal and legitimate, but was at the same time intolerable to the colonists themselves.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

[Bunz]

Actually, we did Google you and the picture showed you standing on your back porch, naked, peeing over the edge. We decided that wasn't the best way to show you so we went with PLC1's post.

Amazing, but hey when you dont really have neighbors why bother right?
Could you clearly see me with a gun? I wonder if the resolution is enough to show the target I was after was not a human shaped target as Numinus thinks I shoot at exclusively.

[Bunz]

But don't worry; we'll take that other photo and perform any number of Photoshop manipulations on it before creating a slideshow-video, with Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven playing in the background, and posting it online. Within a week it'll be the most popular video on Youtube. Congrats, you're going to be a star.

Just what I have always wanted. Thing is, Ill have to get out of town to watch it streamed, it wont work here. Good call on the stairway. I cant wait to be famous. At the end can I be the guy saying "dude dont tase me"?

[Bunz]

A paper target that doesn't move upon the impact of a bullet!?

And a centimeter error in a target of 100 meters will result in how much in a kilometer? Do the math.

Ah Numinus, I know that in your eyes I appear to be a blood thirsty liar, but I will point out a few things. For me personally, I staple my non-human shaped target usually to a cardboard box on all four corners. Then I throw a rock or two in the bottom of the box so it wont move. Plenty of anchor to not move the box enough to make a difference.

I will point out that a centimeter off at 100m is about the threshold of what a human is capable of with current technology. One can shoot smaller groups with match grade rifles and an excellent bench rest. A rifle is considered very accurate if it is off by 1/2 inch at those distances. The variable there enviromental ones. Minute wind differences, humidity, temp, condition of the rifle and other equipment.

As for your notion about shooting at 1000 meters, I dont know of anybody anywhere in a hunting situation that responsibly takes a shot a 1km.
Once again, you are mistaking or falsely grouping together the average hunter and a highly trained military sharshooter.

[Jarlaxle]

A paper target that doesn't move upon the impact of a bullet!?

And a centimeter error in a target of 100 meters will result in how much in a kilometer? Do the math.

No, it doesn't. Secured with the simple method of taping it to a backing of heavy cardboard (itself secured to something), the impact will punch cleanly through the paper, not moving it. This is not rocket science.

[Jarlaxle]

Ah Numinus, I know that in your eyes I appear to be a blood thirsty liar, but I will point out a few things. For me personally, I staple my non-human shaped target usually to a cardboard box on all four corners. Then I throw a rock or two in the bottom of the box so it wont move. Plenty of anchor to not move the box enough to make a difference.

I will point out that a centimeter off at 100m is about the threshold of what a human is capable of with current technology. One can shoot smaller groups with match grade rifles and an excellent bench rest. A rifle is considered very accurate if it is off by 1/2 inch at those distances. The variable there enviromental ones. Minute wind differences, humidity, temp, condition of the rifle and other equipment.

As for your notion about shooting at 1000 meters, I dont know of anybody anywhere in a hunting situation that responsibly takes a shot a 1km.
Once again, you are mistaking or falsely grouping together the average hunter and a highly trained military sharshooter.

Google up the Varmint Hunters Association. They actually have a special patch for anyone who can verify a hit on a rockchuck or prarie dog from 1000 yards. Some of the varmint rifles have absolutely incredibe long-range accuracy.

[numinus]

Screwy, isn't it? Government policies designed to allow people to combat government policies? Nonetheless, in the context of the American Revolution and the subsequent formation of this country, it makes perfect sense. The same people who created the national government rule of America destroyed the British colonial rule of America - British colonial rule which gave every appearance of being perfectly legal and legitimate, but was at the same time intolerable to the colonists themselves.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

No. It does not make perfect sense.

The right to bear arms comes from the absence of a professional military under the control of a central government -- as is the case during the american revolution -- when the colony was asserting independence from a foreign threat.

Clearly, it is not the case right now. Sadly, some people simply cannot part with their firearms -- so they use hunting and self-defense to justify their infatuation with a lethal instrument.

Self-defense can no more justify totting firearms than national security justify stockpiling nukes.

That's simple facts and logic.

[numinus]

Ah Numinus, I know that in your eyes I appear to be a blood thirsty liar, but I will point out a few things. For me personally, I staple my non-human shaped target usually to a cardboard box on all four corners. Then I throw a rock or two in the bottom of the box so it wont move. Plenty of anchor to not move the box enough to make a difference.

I will point out that a centimeter off at 100m is about the threshold of what a human is capable of with current technology. One can shoot smaller groups with match grade rifles and an excellent bench rest. A rifle is considered very accurate if it is off by 1/2 inch at those distances. The variable there enviromental ones. Minute wind differences, humidity, temp, condition of the rifle and other equipment.

As for your notion about shooting at 1000 meters, I dont know of anybody anywhere in a hunting situation that responsibly takes a shot a 1km.
Once again, you are mistaking or falsely grouping together the average hunter and a highly trained military sharshooter.

Just because you love hunting does not justify bearing firearms in the REST OF THE MODERN, URBANIZED WORLD.

And most rifles have effective ranges well beyond a kilometer. That's why they come with a scope.

[PLC1]

A paper target that doesn't move upon the impact of a bullet!?

And a centimeter error in a target of 100 meters will result in how much in a kilometer? Do the math.

Thus, you total inexperience with shooting targets is proven.

You know, it's really OK to admit you don't know about something. No one could possibly have experience with everything. Trying to convince people that you know about something that you quite obviously don't, however, is very difficult.

[vyo476]

The right to bear arms comes from the absence of a professional military under the control of a central government -- as is the case during the american revolution -- when the colony was asserting independence from a foreign threat.

The American Revolution wasn't just a foreign war. That's why we call it a revolution - the American colonists were throwing off the otherwise legal rule of Britain. It was a bunch of people with rifles fighting the government, becasue, at the time, they believed that fighting the government was the right thing to do. It would have been hypocritical for a government born from that fight to say that people shouldn't have the ability to fight the government.

Granted, our government hasn't minded being hypocritical on other matters, but they got that one right, as far as I'm concerned. While they did everything they could to build a virtuous government, they also recognized the possibility that sometime in the future, despite their best efforts, it might again become necessary for the people to rise up against their government. That's a part of where the 2nd Amendment came from.

Self-defense can no more justify totting firearms than national security justify stockpiling nukes.

That's simple facts and logic.

What do you think self-defense justifies, or do you think self-defense is unjustifiable?

[Bunz]

Google up the Varmint Hunters Association. They actually have a special patch for anyone who can verify a hit on a rockchuck or prarie dog from 1000 yards. Some of the varmint rifles have absolutely incredibe long-range accuracy.

I appreciate you pointing this out, but what you describe is by far the exception of the rule, not the norm. I have several "tackdrivers" including a
.22-250 that I hit a coffee can with at 800 yards. THe far majority of hunting especially larger game is done at distances less than 300 yards.
I do understand some people's desire for pest control, I dont have those issues and wouldnt bother with that sort of shooting myself.

[Bunz]

And most rifles have effective ranges well beyond a kilometer. That's why they come with a scope.

Firstly, you are incorrect on your notion of an effective range beyond a KM. But hey what does facts matter. Lets have a look at the standard issue sniper rifle from the USMC. The M-40. It is a beefed up more accurate version of the remington model 700 bolt action rifle with a 10x scope,
in 7.62x54mm(.308) its listed effective range is 800 meters. While it will hit and potentially kill at longer ranges, ensuring accuracy and velocity past those ranges is difficult at best. Same goes for most other hunting rifles.
I hunt the largest game animals in North America, moose and caribou, I have turned away from shots longer than 300 yards because I could not ensure a responsible shot. Because a bullet will travel x distance, does not mean it is within effective range. Your showing your ignorance.

[Bunz]

[QUOTE=numinus;34062]Just because you love hunting does not justify bearing firearms in the REST OF THE MODERN, URBANIZED WORLD.[QUOTE]

A few things, number one being that I dont necessarily love hunting. Love is not a word I would use. I enjoy being outdoors, and spending time with my family. But hunting is something I do out of necessity.

The second issue, about the modern urbanized world, if the powers that be in those urban cities dont want thier subjects to have firearms, that is on them. Dont put limits on me because of some urban street war between two gangs or for whatever justification one wants to put on it.

Why limit law abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals?

[Jarlaxle]

I appreciate you pointing this out, but what you describe is by far the exception of the rule, not the norm. I have several "tackdrivers" including a
.22-250 that I hit a coffee can with at 800 yards. THe far majority of hunting especially larger game is done at distances less than 300 yards.
I do understand some people's desire for pest control, I dont have those issues and wouldnt bother with that sort of shooting myself.

I didn't say it was common, but it is doable. (For the record, a target comparable to a rockchuck would probably be a soda can, a prarie dog might be comparable to a playing card.) IIRC, a lot of them use highly-customized .243 (6mm) rifles shooting boat-tail hollow-points with very fast-twist barrels.

Personally, I prefer pistols.

[numinus]

No, it doesn't. Secured with the simple method of taping it to a backing of heavy cardboard (itself secured to something), the impact will punch cleanly through the paper, not moving it. This is not rocket science.

So, the target with scoring rings is irrelevant. Thank you for pointing that out.

[dahermit]

Just to set the record straight.

The concentric rings(scoring rings) on paper targets are utilized by most hunters as an aid to zeroing a rifle. I prefer a target with a 1 inch bull and the entire surface imprinted with a 1 inch grid...but most targets available have scoring rings. Scoring rings on a target do not indicate any insidious purpose of the shooter.

Hunters of today hunt for sport and to supplement(usually not subsistence hunt), the meats found in super markets. Wood duck is a favorite of mine as is wild goose and pheasant. Beef, pork, chicken, and turkey become boring. Therefore, a statement that "I hunt to feed my family..." is not disingenuous. I grew up eating deer, duck, rabbit, squirrel, and ruffed grouse.

Most rifles do not come with scopes. The scopes are almost always purchased separately. Many rifles today do not come with iron sights mounted and are intended to be used with scopes.

Shooting a five shot group is an arbitrary number when zeroing a rifle. It has nothing to do with standard deviation. A ten shot group would be a better indicator of a rifle's capability, but would result in too much heat absorbed by the barrel(in a sporter weight barrel). Also, ten shots in a center-fire is half a box of expensive ammo.

Most rifles have an effective range (not maximum range) of much less than 1000 meters. The people who have the equipment and skill to consistently strike a 12 inch bull at 1000 meters is likely less than 1% of shooters/hunters. 1000 meter "kills" on human size or large game targets are mostly read about in fictional novels and movies, luck not withstanding.

Paper targets are the standard in most shooting(exception being "reactive"type targets that are usually steel and meant to tip over at the bullet strike), including the most precise of the shooting sports, bench rest competition. Any "warping" of a target is not statistically significant. In fact with high velocity bullets, the paper will not tear at all; the bullet powders the paper resulting in a clean caliber-size hole that appears to be punched. The position of paper target is not effected.

Police do not spend "years" practicing their skills with firearms. Some are loath to practice, some practice often. There are many civilian shooters who are unusually skilled especially if they are shooting sports competitors. I have witnessed and have police friends who are not particularly knowledgeable or skilled with their firearms. The people who run the training camps for police, and other combat shooters are civilians.

Most shooters (few) do not use human-shaped targets. My favorite sport is bowling pin shooting (a timed pistol event). The most popular pistol shooting sports currently use round steel targets (falling plates)

However, I will confess to fantasizing about killing those bowling pins when I shoot. ;)

All guns were not designed for the purpose of shooting human beings or even animals for that matter. Case in point, I have a Browning BT-99 Trap gun that was designed to be used only for Trap shooting that it is impractical to use for any other purpose. It has no safety as it was intended to be empty until it is your turn to fire and then loaded and fired immediately after loading. It is weighed to point of being too heavy to carry in the field.
If you were familiar with a Hammerli Rapid Fire Olympic pistol it is painfully obvious that it has no other purpose than competition.

Statistics are available (NRA website)that indicate that during the last few years the crime rate has diminished in the United States. In the last few years, most states have enacted laws that allow the average citizen to carry a concealed weapon.

"...ask any police officer..." Is an appeal to authority; which any first-year logic student knows is not an acceptable argument. Also, it presupposes that they somehow are more knowledgeable about some subject than others. The sad truth is that most of the police officers I have dealt with in my 64 years have been dullards. There has only been one(Female Mich. State Police Officer, that I know personally) that demonstrated professionalism and more than above average intelligence. Especially disappointing are small town police and sheriff departments. The average intelligence(I.Q.) of a human is 100. Local police departments reflect that average. To view the average police officer as an authority on any subject is without merit.

It has been implied in these posts that gun owners are mentally unsound due to their interest in firearms. I spent many hours studying psychiatry and psychology(normal and abnormal); I have found no evident pathology by virtue of an interest in firearms. Firearm competitors, hunters appear to be well socialized and pathology free.

Examine if you will, the tone of the posts in this thread. Do you notice anyone who seems not to be able to relate the others in a positive way, but posts with accusations, antagonism and belligerence?

[Jarlaxle]

So, the target with scoring rings is irrelevant. Thank you for pointing that out.

Yeah, whatever you say.:rolleyes:

[dahermit]

From Nummy...Since when is a knowledge of firearms considered an intellectual pursuit, hmmm?One of the factors that interested me in firearms is that unlike many things, it is open ended in that it can be a very simple past time or can be studied as to its relativity to the sciences. The sciences that can be involved in firearms are: mathematics including geometry, calculus, physics, and trigonometry. Also included are chemistry, metallurgy.

For instance, the Coriolis Effect upon projectile dispersion at extended range. Lead Styphenate and Nitrocellulose. Austinetic, Martensetic, and Ferritic stainless steels. The molecular phases of heat treat including Austinite and Martinsite. Cast Bullet alloys that include lead, tin, antimony, and arsenic. Composition of Brass (copper and zinc), and the heat treatment there of. Heat treatment of lead alloy cast bullets. etc., etc.

Furthermore, the history of firearms is also a worthy intellectual pursuit. The reasoning behind Major Schofield's modifications to Smith and Wesson's Model 3. The significance of the hidden set triggers in Hamilton's dueling pistols(Hamilton-Burr duel).

Given the above, anyone who would say: "...Since when is a knowledge of firearms considered an intellectual pursuit, hmmm?", has demonstrated that they lack the knowledge to make that determination and just seeks to be provocative.

[Mare Tranquillity]

One of the factors that interested me in firearms is that unlike many things, it is open ended in that it can be a very simple past time or can be studied as to its relativity to the sciences. The sciences that can be involved in firearms are: mathematics including geometry, calculus, physics, and trigonometry. Also included are chemistry, metallurgy.

For instance, the Coriolis Effect upon projectile dispersion at extended range. Lead Styphenate and Nitrocellulose. Austinetic, Martensetic, and Ferritic stainless steels. The molecular phases of heat treat including Austinite and Martinsite. Cast Bullet alloys that include lead, tin, antimony, and arsenic. Composition of Brass (copper and zinc), and the heat treatment there of. Heat treatment of lead alloy cast bullets. etc., etc.

Furthermore, the history of firearms is also a worthy intellectual pursuit. The reasoning behind Major Schofield's modifications to Smith and Wesson's Model 3. The significance of the hidden set triggers in Hamilton's dueling pistols(Hamilton-Burr duel).

Given the above, anyone who would say: "...Since when is a knowledge of firearms considered an intellectual pursuit, hmmm?", has demonstrated that they lack the knowledge to make that determination and just seeks to be provocative.

Getting back to the orginal post's question, it seems to me after reading Jar's posts and yours, that the one person posting here who should NOT have a gun is the one arguing with you guys.

On a personal note, I sold or gave away my guns 30+ years ago when I realized that I was not going to fit in all that well in what passes for society in this country and I didn't want to take the risk of shooting someone. I was living in fairly backward area during that part of my life, I'd had guns pulled on me, aimed at me, had my life threatened, and I realized that I didn't want to do that to someone else. I find the technology of guns interesting and I read about them some, I find the advances in technology fascinating. That new rail-gun the Navy has made that shoots hundreds of miles with non-explosive projectiles that do the damage to their target with kinetic energy are going to make the ships that carry them safer since there are no explosives necessary to shoot them. Thanks for some interesting posts.

[dahermit]

...I was living in fairly backward area during that part of my life, I'd had guns pulled on me, aimed at me, had my life threatened, and I realized that I didn't want to do that to someone else...It sounds like you have had some interesting life events. I for one, would like to hear in detail the circumstances of which you speak...if you would care to share with us.

[Mare Tranquillity]

It sounds like you have had some interesting life events. I for one, would like to hear in detail the circumstances of which you speak...if you would care to share with us.

I wrote a long response to this post of yours, Dah, but even though I reread it on the thread after posting it somehow in the change to the new server it got deleted. I've no interest in trying to recreate it and I suppose that the mods don't have access to the old site documents so they probably can't retrieve it either... excrement happens. It was just the reminisces of an old person anyway.

Or maybe it was so subversive that the Homeland Security guys deleted it, it was about a time in American life when we didn't have the fascists running the country, suborning the Constitution, and setting aside the Bill of Rights, nor was torture a legal policy of the American government.

[Pidgey]

So did I. Dammit. Oh, well, at least I got to read your response before both of ours disappeared so it wasn't a total waste.

Pidgey

[Pidgey]

In the spirit of this particular debate subject, though, I DO think that some of the folks on this thread shouldn't be allowed to carry guns into the same room together.

Pidgey

[numinus]

One of the factors that interested me in firearms is that unlike many things, it is open ended in that it can be a very simple past time or can be studied as to its relativity to the sciences. The sciences that can be involved in firearms are: mathematics including geometry, calculus, physics, and trigonometry. Also included are chemistry, metallurgy.

For instance, the Coriolis Effect upon projectile dispersion at extended range. Lead Styphenate and Nitrocellulose. Austinetic, Martensetic, and Ferritic stainless steels. The molecular phases of heat treat including Austinite and Martinsite. Cast Bullet alloys that include lead, tin, antimony, and arsenic. Composition of Brass (copper and zinc), and the heat treatment there of. Heat treatment of lead alloy cast bullets. etc., etc.

Furthermore, the history of firearms is also a worthy intellectual pursuit. The reasoning behind Major Schofield's modifications to Smith and Wesson's Model 3. The significance of the hidden set triggers in Hamilton's dueling pistols(Hamilton-Burr duel).

Given the above, anyone who would say: "...Since when is a knowledge of firearms considered an intellectual pursuit, hmmm?", has demonstrated that they lack the knowledge to make that determination and just seeks to be provocative.

****ing in your pants have causes that are explainable by science although I doubt if anyone would call it an intellectual pursuit. Your post on 'zeroing in' is nothing more than the application of standard distribution to a normal statistical field.

A target with scoring rings is irrelevant to this since ANY target can be used just as easily and effectively. This sort of target is used for sport -- which you use in an attempt to hide the true purpose of a firearm -- to kill.

[numinus]

In the spirit of this particular debate subject, though, I DO think that some of the folks on this thread shouldn't be allowed to carry guns into the same room together.

Pidgey

Which succintly proves my point on its purpose.

[Jarlaxle]

****ing in your pants have causes that are explainable by science although I doubt if anyone would call it an intellectual pursuit. Your post on 'zeroing in' is nothing more than the application of standard distribution to a normal statistical field.

A target with scoring rings is irrelevant to this since ANY target can be used just as easily and effectively. This sort of target is used for sport -- which you use in an attempt to hide the true purpose of a firearm -- to kill.

No, it is used for zeroing in (makes figuring the exact adjustments easier, especially at long range), and for scoring some types of competitive shooting.

[dahermit]

"...Your post on 'zeroing in' is nothing more than the application of standard distribution to a normal statistical field. "
Please explain the process in detail, Nummie. How is the application of standard distribution to a normal statistical field used to zero-in a hunting rifle?

[numinus]

No, it is used for zeroing in (makes figuring the exact adjustments easier, especially at long range), and for scoring some types of competitive shooting.

There it is -- some form of honesty at last.

[numinus]

"...Your post on 'zeroing in' is nothing more than the application of standard distribution to a normal statistical field. "
Please explain the process in detail, Nummie. How is the application of standard distribution to a normal statistical field used to zero-in a hunting rifle?

A normally distributed statistical field has a confidence level equal to integral increments of the standard deviation.

If your rifle shoots outside this tolerance limit, it means that the optical axis of your telescope is deflected from the axis of your barrel -- hence the need to adjust the scope.

Duh?

[Mare Tranquillity]

A normally distributed statistical field has a confidence level equal to integral increments of the standard deviation.

If your rifle shoots outside this tolerance limit, it means that the optical axis of your telescope is deflected from the axis of your barrel -- hence the need to adjust the scope.

Duh?

Not being a gun-dummy, I was curious if, in your opinion, Nums, priests exceed the standard deviation when having sex with kids. Maybe you could scope it out and see if your tolerance limit will allow you to reflect on the issue at hand.

[jerm19d]

Wow.....I am in the military and I have the opinion that some military people SHOULD not be aloud to have firearms. The reason being is you are trained more on the firearm than most civilians. And all it takes is a former vet to have a flashback of a traumatic event to snap and start using that firearm that he was trained in. I am also a police officer and I say that the laws that the government has laid out work fine. The problem is they have to get they illegal weapons off the street. Once that is done you should see a serious drop in Gun crimes.:)

[Bunz]

A normally distributed statistical field has a confidence level equal to integral increments of the standard deviation.

If your rifle shoots outside this tolerance limit, it means that the optical axis of your telescope is deflected from the axis of your barrel -- hence the need to adjust the scope.

Duh?

Ah welcome back Nums,

It is slightly more complicated than that. Or at least the causes for that to happen vary widely where it isnt always a simple diagnosis. A scope or rifle that is jarred can move slightly enough in many different ways to throw off the accuracy one is attempting to attain.

The clicks on the scope can move, the scope itself can move, the stock can shrink and expand due to humidity alone, much less dropping it in the field etc. Temperature and weather variations like the humidity I mentioned before can do interesting things to the accuracy of a rifle.
And last and often the most likely reason is the inperfection in humans. Accuracy on a hyper level of say 1/2inch groups at 100 yards, is either luck or the combination of a very skiller shooter and an exceptional rifle.

[Bunz]

Wow.....I am in the military and I have the opinion that some military people SHOULD not be aloud to have firearms. The reason being is you are trained more on the firearm than most civilians. And all it takes is a former vet to have a flashback of a traumatic event to snap and start using that firearm that he was trained in. I am also a police officer and I say that the laws that the government has laid out work fine. The problem is they have to get they illegal weapons off the street. Once that is done you should see a serious drop in Gun crimes.:)

What country are you from?

Id like to know what you define as an illegal gun?

[PLC1]

A normally distributed statistical field has a confidence level equal to integral increments of the standard deviation.

If your rifle shoots outside this tolerance limit, it means that the optical axis of your telescope is deflected from the axis of your barrel -- hence the need to adjust the scope.

Duh?

If your rifle shoots outside of the "normally distributed statistical field" ie., shoots all over the target and sometimes misses it entirely, the fault is likely not the rifle at all, but the marksman. It takes practice to hit what you're aiming at. If it consistently hits low, high, right, or left, then it's time to adjust the sight.

It takes practice with a shotgun, too. I made a little video of myself testing out a sweet new shotgun.

Here I am: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6bKbqSdNEc






And, if you believe that is me, I have some Arizona ocean view land you might be interested in.:D

[dahermit]

A normally distributed statistical field has a confidence level equal to integral increments of the standard deviation.

If your rifle shoots outside this tolerance limit, it means that the optical axis of your telescope is deflected from the axis of your barrel -- hence the need to adjust the scope.

Duh?I asked for a detailed explanation of how standard deviation is used to zero in a rifle. You supplied statistical jargon.

Let's start again. "A normally distributed statistical field has a confidence level equal to integral increments of the standard deviation." ("tolerance limit")equals what number?

Lets say that I shoot a five shot group on a target at 100 yards and use the bottom of a one-inch bull as the aiming point. The center of the group( the group has an 2 inch diameter), prints two inches low and four inches to the left of the aiming point( I know this because the concentric rings surrounding the bull are one inch apart). I compensate by adjusting the elevation scope adjustment by 8 clicks of adjustment (1/4 inch per click on hunting scope) plus another 8 clicks so that the rifle will print two inches high from the point of aim at 100 yards.

For the windage adjustment, I turn the adjustment 16 clicks right windage.

Now Nummy, how did I need to use standard deviation to adjust the scope?

[dahermit]

I asked for a detailed explanation of how standard deviation is used to zero in a rifle. You supplied statistical jargon.

Let's start again. "A normally distributed statistical field has a confidence level equal to integral increments of the standard deviation." ("tolerance limit")equals what number?

Lets say that I shoot a five shot group on a target at 100 yards and use the bottom of a one-inch bull as the aiming point. The center of the group( the group has an 2 inch diameter), prints two inches low and four inches to the left of the aiming point( I know this because the concentric rings surrounding the bull are one inch apart). I compensate by adjusting the elevation scope adjustment by 8 clicks of adjustment (1/4 inch per click on hunting scope) plus another 8 clicks so that the rifle will print two inches high from the point of aim at 100 yards.

For the windage adjustment, I turn the adjustment 16 clicks right windage.

Now Nummy, how did I need to use standard deviation to adjust the scope?

Nummy, you come back here and play!

[numinus]

Sigh

In all physical measurements, there are three distinct sources of error - human, systematic, and random.

Human error is self explanatory.

Systematic errors are those errors coming from the instrument, assuming constant environmental factors.

Random errors are the those that result from the uncertainty inherent in the degree of precision of the instrument. It is the error related to the standard deviation which is formally defined as the root mean square of the deviations of all measurments from their arithmetical mean. In nature, this type of error CAN NEVER BE ELIMINATED.

So, if you exceed this pre-determined area of dispersion defined by the standard deviation, the difference would be due to either systematic or human error -- and thus can be adjusted accordingly.

Logical, isn't it?

[numinus]

I asked for a detailed explanation of how standard deviation is used to zero in a rifle. You supplied statistical jargon.

Let's start again. "A normally distributed statistical field has a confidence level equal to integral increments of the standard deviation." ("tolerance limit")equals what number?

Lets say that I shoot a five shot group on a target at 100 yards and use the bottom of a one-inch bull as the aiming point. The center of the group( the group has an 2 inch diameter), prints two inches low and four inches to the left of the aiming point( I know this because the concentric rings surrounding the bull are one inch apart). I compensate by adjusting the elevation scope adjustment by 8 clicks of adjustment (1/4 inch per click on hunting scope) plus another 8 clicks so that the rifle will print two inches high from the point of aim at 100 yards.

For the windage adjustment, I turn the adjustment 16 clicks right windage.

Now Nummy, how did I need to use standard deviation to adjust the scope?

The standard deviation is related to the degree of precision of your scope, which you said, is 1/4 inch per click at a designated horizontal distance. This would increase proportionately as your target goes nearer or farther. So, you have just used the standard deviation to determine the amount of systematic error attributable to your scope.

Duh?

[numinus]

Nummy, you come back here and play!

Spectrum® Survey 3.30 Network Adjustment Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project: C:\Program Files\Sokkia\Common\Spectrum Projects\apr3.spr

Coordinate System: GEO [Geographic] Datum: WGS84
Geoid Model: <None> Units: Meters
Adjustment Time: 2008/04/10 10:28:18 (LOCAL) Time Zone: GMT+8.00h


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Type: Free
Computation Level: Full Adjustment

Additional Parameters:
- Deflection of vertical (N-S) Not used
- Deflection of vertical (E-W) Not used
- Horizontal rotation Not used
- Scale difference Not used

Iteration Criteria:
- Maximum iteration 5
- Maximum coordinate difference (m) 0.0001

Reference Datum:
- Datum Name WGS84
- Semi-major axis (m) 6378137.000
- Flattening (m) 1.0/298.257222101

Weight Options:
- Use covariance matrix from vector analysis
- Use individual weighting scale

Geoid Model: NONE
- Orthometric heights will not be computed

Transformation to Map Coordinate System ...NO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Adjustment Statistics
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Points:
- Horizontal fixed & height fixed 1
- Horizontal fixed & height free 0
- Horizontal free & height fixed 0
- Horizontal free & height free 3
-----
total 4

Number of Unknowns:
- Latitude 3
- Longitude 3
- Height 3
- Additional parameters 0
-----
(a) total 9

Number of observations
- X component 12
- Y component 12
- Z component 12
-----
(b) total 36

Number of Rank Defect (c) 0
Number of Total Redundancy (b)+(c)-(a) 27
Iterations Used 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chi Square Test on the Variance Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Number of Observations: 36
Redundancy: 27
Confidence Level: 95%
A Priori Variance Factor: 1.0000
A Posteriori Variance Factor (VF): 3.8973

Chi Square Test on the Variance Factor (3.8973)
0.5396 < VF < 1.5996

Standard Deviations for the input observations appear to be too optimistic.

** Note: The Standarded Deviation of Unit Weight is the square root of the
Variance Factor.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------