"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:19:35 -0500, Harry wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?
Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a
roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be
seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a
direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my
mind...

A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a
bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill
someone quite a distance away.


Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the
earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen
a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right
on through.

I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries
resulting from bullets fired into the air.

I'm sure there are. I should clarify, *relatively* not much power. The
Army did a study on .30 caliber reaching terminal velocity. They figured
it to be @ 300 feet per second, with a force of @ 30 foot lbs. Being hit
by such, would definitely be an unpleasant experience, and could kill,
but compared to an M1 carbine with a muzzle velocity of 1,970 ft/s. I'll
take my chances with a bullet falling straight down.

But might have still been on a trajectory. Friend who is a retired cop,
said he shot at a robber and the bullet went through the side of a metal
building about a mile away and luckily did not kill the lady that it hit.
Went in the front of her throat lodged against the spine. And that was with
maybe a 357 police revolver. I think it was before they went to 9 mil.

On Jan 3, 10:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:36 -0800, jps wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote:

Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a
stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the
scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle
Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A.
members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the
alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat
rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of
N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that
invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements..

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to
suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69
percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing
federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed,
favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea
to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how
reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by
propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun
lobby.

Posted by SusanG at Kos.

Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study
that proved their point....! *OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well
who did they hire? They hired:

http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html

Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of
data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do
they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo....

"Remember, what matters is not what you say. *Its what people hear."

Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of
lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm
not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to
describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you
can agree with, if you pay them enough.....

These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly
crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent
gun owners....

Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did?

Give me your cite....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/09/AR200...

Read the article Gene. *

Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a
left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was.

I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you
want to impune the veracity of his study.

"impune"? *There's a lonely, forlorn "g" floating around out there
somewhere in the melancholy land of misguided liberal rebuttals. *And
it never hurts to take an extra "e" on the end of a word just for good
measure.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Im`pune´
a. 1. Unpunished.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G.
Merriam Co.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:10:27 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 3, 10:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:36 -0800, jps wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote:

Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a
stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the
scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle
Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A.
members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the
alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat
rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of
N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that
invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to
suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69
percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing
federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed,
favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea
to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how
reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by
propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun
lobby.

Posted by SusanG at Kos.

Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study
that proved their point....! *OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well
who did they hire? They hired:

http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html

Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of
data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do
they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo....

"Remember, what matters is not what you say. *Its what people hear."

Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of
lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm
not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to
describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you
can agree with, if you pay them enough.....

These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly
crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent
gun owners....

Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did?

Give me your cite....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/09/AR200...

Read the article Gene. *

Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a
left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was.

I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you
want to impune the veracity of his study.

"impune"? *There's a lonely, forlorn "g" floating around out there
somewhere in the melancholy land of misguided liberal rebuttals. *And
it never hurts to take an extra "e" on the end of a word just for good
measure.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Im`pune´
a. 1. Unpunished.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G.
Merriam Co.

This is the definition of the word that fits the context of the text;

Main Entry: im·pugn
Pronunciation: \im-'pyün\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French empugner, from Latin
inpugnare, from in- + pugnare to fight — more at pungent
Date: 14th century
1 : to assail by words or arguments : oppose or attack as false or
lacking integrity impugned the defendant's character

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?

Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof
(becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen
until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct
shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind...

A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet
shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a
distance away.

Depends upon the round's characteristics. Some will struggle to go 100
yards on a good day.

In article ,
says...

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:19:35 -0500, Harry wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?
Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a
roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be
seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a
direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my
mind...

A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a
bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill
someone quite a distance away.


Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the
earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen
a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right
on through.

I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries
resulting from bullets fired into the air.

I'm sure there are. I should clarify, *relatively* not much power. The
Army did a study on .30 caliber reaching terminal velocity. They figured
it to be @ 300 feet per second, with a force of @ 30 foot lbs. Being hit
by such, would definitely be an unpleasant experience, and could kill,
but compared to an M1 carbine with a muzzle velocity of 1,970 ft/s. I'll
take my chances with a bullet falling straight down.

But might have still been on a trajectory. Friend who is a retired cop,
said he shot at a robber and the bullet went through the side of a metal
building about a mile away and luckily did not kill the lady that it hit.
Went in the front of her throat lodged against the spine. And that was with
maybe a 357 police revolver. I think it was before they went to 9 mil.

I can put a stick through a metal building using nothing but my bare
hands.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:52:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:19:35 -0500, Harry wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?
Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a
roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be
seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a
direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my
mind...

A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a
bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill
someone quite a distance away.


Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the
earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen
a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right
on through.

I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries
resulting from bullets fired into the air.

I'm sure there are. I should clarify, *relatively* not much power. The
Army did a study on .30 caliber reaching terminal velocity. They figured
it to be @ 300 feet per second, with a force of @ 30 foot lbs. Being hit
by such, would definitely be an unpleasant experience, and could kill,
but compared to an M1 carbine with a muzzle velocity of 1,970 ft/s. I'll
take my chances with a bullet falling straight down.

But might have still been on a trajectory. Friend who is a retired cop,
said he shot at a robber and the bullet went through the side of a metal
building about a mile away and luckily did not kill the lady that it hit.
Went in the front of her throat lodged against the spine. And that was with
maybe a 357 police revolver. I think it was before they went to 9 mil.

I can put a stick through a metal building using nothing but my bare
hands.

Would that be your house or garage?

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?

Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof
(becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen
until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct
shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind...

A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet
shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a
distance away.

Yeah, really never thought of that... oooops. So basically, it could
remain balistic and at speed for the length of the journey, right?

Scotty