Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

#77 Dec 10 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
When your goal is to destroy everything you can't miss.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#78 Dec 11 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
Spoonless wrote:
I love this thread so much.
It's like watching two lemmings headbutt each other over and over again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Dec 11 2012 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji vs alma makes up the bulk of the content here.

See what happens?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#80 Dec 11 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji vs alma makes up the bulk of the content here.

See what happens?

~5 posts out of 80 is "the bulk"? really? Even on this forum, I agree with Gbaji on more topics than not. You're clearly making stuff up to get attention.
#81 Dec 11 2012 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
When your goal is to destroy everything you can't miss.


Basically this. Accuracy somewhat implies hitting targets you want to hit, while not hitting those you don't. Assuming you always want to hit everyone in an area so as to declare an inherently inaccurate weapon accurate kinda misses the whole point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Dec 11 2012 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
When your goal is to destroy everything you can't miss.


Basically this. Accuracy somewhat implies hitting targets you want to hit, while not hitting those you don't. Assuming you always want to hit everyone in an area so as to declare an inherently inaccurate weapon accurate kinda misses the whole point.


But that's the point of the creation of the weapon, to hit everything. Weapons are created to deal damage at varying levels. Now, if your point was to kill 2 people with an atom bomb, then you would be right. However, if your goal is to wipe out a city, a hand gun is NOT accurate. That's when you use the A-Bomb.
#83 Dec 11 2012 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A federal appeals court ruled today that Illinois has 180 days to create some form of concealed carry legislation (IL was the sole state with no tolerance for CC). Still no ruling on allowing us to conceal chemical weapons though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Dec 11 2012 at 6:00 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Well because chemical weapons aren't accurate enough! D'uh!
#85 Dec 11 2012 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
But that's the point of the creation of the weapon, to hit everything. Weapons are created to deal damage at varying levels. Now, if your point was to kill 2 people with an atom bomb, then you would be right. However, if your goal is to wipe out a city, a hand gun is NOT accurate. That's when you use the A-Bomb.


Again with the unique definition of accurate. Accuracy has to do with how close to a specific target you can hit. It refers to the delivery system *not* the payload. The payload determines what effect occurs at the target point. So a bullet puts a small hole right at the point of impact. A small explosive might detonate and spread shrapnel within a given radius. A larger explosive will affect a larger area. A nuclear weapon even larger (and more complete). A chemical weapon will expand from the point of impact and spread out depending on wind and terrain conditions.

If you have a ballistic missile that can consistently hit within 100M of the target point, it's always less accurate than a bullet fired from a handgun which can consistently hit within a foot or so of the intended target point. Obviously, range and payload considerations are important, but to suggest that an atomic bomb fired via ballistic missile is "more accurate" simply because it affects a larger area is complete lunacy. It's more correct to say that the atomic bomb doesn't need to be as accurate. Same applies to some degree with chemical weapons. You fire them at an area, not a single specific target. But that's part of the reason why we tend to care more about guns versus chemical weapons. You *can* fire a gun with a simple bullet at a single selected target and affect just that target. You *can't* do this with a rocket carrying a chemical weapon payload.


At the end of the day though, the one statement you made that was absolutely correct is that the point of the weapon is to hit an area and everyone in it. And that's precisely why it's more problematic than weapons firing more traditional payloads.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Dec 11 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Obviously, range and payload considerations are important, but to suggest that an atomic bomb fired via ballistic missile is "more accurate" simply because it affects a larger area is complete lunacy.


I didn't say that. I said an atomic bomb is accurate because it attacks all of the desired targets. You're making the assumption that just because the area affected was large that the attacker did not intend for the entire area to be affected. The world has an armory of varying weapons to the point that if a person only wanted to attack a single building, they would use a different weapon. People don't plan on using Weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!! to kill 2 people. They intend to destroy a large area and SINCE THAT IS THEIR INTENT, it is accurate. Not simply because its a large area.

Edited, Dec 12th 2012 5:28pm by Almalieque
#87 Dec 11 2012 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Dec 11 2012 at 9:28 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
I'm glad that you finally see the error in your ways. You misstated my claim.

In other news, with the latest mall shooting that just happened, it's only a matter of time before the US acts out of emotion and capriciously make gun-control laws.
#89 Dec 11 2012 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#90 Dec 11 2012 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.

Shhh... he's still pretending to be in the military. He knows ALL.
#91 Dec 12 2012 at 12:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,394 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A federal appeals court ruled today that Illinois has 180 days to create some form of concealed carry legislation (IL was the sole state with no tolerance for CC). Still no ruling on allowing us to conceal chemical weapons though.
Chemical weapons are only considered appropriate for personal scale self defense in a few compounds in Montana.
#92 Dec 12 2012 at 5:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,460 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Chemical weapons are only considered appropriate for personal scale self defense in a few compounds in Montana.


And pretty much everywhere else
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#93 Dec 12 2012 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,394 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Chemical weapons are only considered appropriate for personal scale self defense in a few compounds in Montana.


And pretty much everywhere else
I should have said "Lethal" chemical weapons. Smiley: tongue
#94 Dec 12 2012 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
Well, seeing as there is no such thing as a nonlethal classification anymore ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#95 Dec 12 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.


As mentioned, please provide a contradicting definition.
#96 Dec 12 2012 at 9:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
Accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured or calculated quantity to its actual (true) value.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#97 Dec 12 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.


As mentioned, please provide a contradicting definition.


Several people already have. Even Gbaji has provided you with a workable definition, and he has a long standing vendetta against definitions of commonly used words and dictionaries of all types.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#98 Dec 12 2012 at 11:34 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Alma, that is not how accuracy works.


As mentioned, please provide a contradicting definition.


Several people already have. Even Gbaji has provided you with a workable definition, and he has a long standing vendetta against definitions of commonly used words and dictionaries of all types.


No one has provided an actual definition that contradicts that claim. Gbaji claimed that my argument was simply due to the weapon affecting a large area. Since I did not say that, his claim did not address my statement. If you want to cop out because you don't have a definition, that's fine, else just accept the fact that you're wrong.

Let's play another game. I'll define the word and you tell me how using WMD to attack a city does not qualify.


1: freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision


the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.
#99 Dec 12 2012 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
If you literally define your target as hitting everyone and everything, then sure they're accurate. Assuming you don't want to kill your own people though, I could see an argument for inaccuracy when you have chemicals being blown around by changing winds or something.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#100 Dec 12 2012 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Couldn't you argue that it's accurate, but not precise? Or am I confusing the two terms?
____________________________
Banh
#101 Dec 12 2012 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
Think so. Though I suspect that has the same problem. Can I reproducibly place payload somewhere? Well sure, the target is everything. Anywhere it lands is adequate. If the shells land 2 meters apart or 200 meters both are equally precise in this highly digitized scenario... Smiley: rolleyes

Maybe we should have a philosophical discussion about whether or not you can have accuracy without inaccuracy?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (36)