The real conspiracy and how flat earthers are contributing to it

"Better weapon" is subjective. Close range? Knife. Long-range(10-30 feet), pistol. Very long range? Assault weapon.

An "assault weapon" is not effective at "very long range".  Also, a knife is a weapon of last resort at close range.  And, 10-30 feet is not "long range".  You do not seem to know much about weapons. 

Eh, you get my point, though, right? A  pistol is not going to help you at sniper range, nor is a rocket launcher.

I'd like a 10.5" upper on an M4 for CQ, but there's a lot of paperwork to legally have one.  My state just recently made it legal.  I have a 5.56 10.5" upper and a 9mm 7.5" upper, but they're both on 'pistol' lowers with no buttstock.

The 5.56 10.5 will still reach out a little too.  I'll have to see what kind of groups I get with mine sometime from 100-400 yrds.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 24, 2015, 11:57:44 AM

imagine how they would run faced with an owner with a better weapon.

Rocket launchers and flame throwers are just stupid.  I can choose between a Mossberg 590, an M4, AK, or a Steyr AUG.  What would you consider a 'better weapon'?

the more intimidating, the better. that is what weapons are for, when it comes to preventing crime.
flamethrowers more than qualify. just the sight of one would scare off many people.

the more intimidating, the better. that is what weapons are for, when it comes to preventing crime.
flamethrowers more than qualify. just the sight of one would scare off many people.

Then build a fake rocket launcher or flame thrower, and then hope an intruder doesn't call your bluff.  Or get a real one and try it out inside.  Let us know about the results.

of course they'd call my bluff, there is no legal way to get one at the moment.
do you have anything other than absurdities and stupid remarks to contribute?

try firing a gun inside. look at that, bloodstains and property damage. it'll happen either way: fires can be easy to put out. make fire blankets more available, problem solved.

A flamethrower would be way too dangerous, considering the main building material of a general home is wood.

A flamethrower would be way too dangerous, considering the main building material of a general home is wood.

mine's made of stone, i don't know what backwater you live in.

of course it's dangerous, what else do you expect from a weapon? are you now saying stone and wood is bulletproof?

Do bullets spread and destroy any flammable object?

Do bullets spread and destroy any flammable object?

with structural damage, they can.
fire can be extinguished quicker with flame blankets, which would clearly be sold alongside flamethrowers. the damage would only be superficial, unlike bullet damage. the net result is worth it.

Eh, you get my point, though, right? A  pistol is not going to help you at sniper range, nor is a rocket launcher.

I've hit a target from 1,000 yards away with a pistol. It was a Smith & Wesson M&P.

Do you think it would've been easier with a rifle?

do you have anything other than absurdities and stupid remarks to contribute?

Sadly, nothing that will compare to the quality and quantity of your absurdities and stupid remarks.

Quote from: Misero on April 25, 2015, 03:59:35 AM

Eh, you get my point, though, right? A  pistol is not going to help you at sniper range, nor is a rocket launcher.

I've hit a target from 1,000 yards away with a pistol. It was a Smith & Wesson M&P.

Was that target the broad side of a barn?  If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to take into account the Coriolis effect. Wonder why that is?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 10:09:01 AM

If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to take into account the Coriolis effect. Wonder why that is?

Then why does taking the Coriolis effect into account improve acuracy over a long range?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 10:09:01 AM

If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to take into account the Coriolis effect. Wonder why that is?

Because you either got very lucky while you were screwing up your aim, or you are lying.

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 10:42:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 10:09:01 AM

If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to take into account the Coriolis effect. Wonder why that is?

Because you either got very lucky while you were screwing up your aim, or you are lying.

I used an attachable scope and aimed directly at the target.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on April 27, 2015, 11:21:16 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 10:42:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 10:09:01 AM

If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to take into account the Coriolis effect. Wonder why that is?

Because you either got very lucky while you were screwing up your aim, or you are lying.

I used an attachable scope and aimed directly at the target.

So...yeah, exactly what I said.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on April 27, 2015, 11:21:16 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 10:42:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 10:09:01 AM

If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to take into account the Coriolis effect. Wonder why that is?

Because you either got very lucky while you were screwing up your aim, or you are lying.

I used an attachable scope and aimed directly at the target.

You mean you didn't even account for gravity (or whatever flat earthers think is responsible for holding things to the ground)?  That must mean that things don't fall and that we are all floating around weightlessly.

You mean you didn't even account for gravity (or whatever flat earthers think is responsible for holding things to the ground)?  That must mean that things don't fall and that we are all floating around weightlessly.

It's called Universal Acceleration, and no, I did not account for it.

The Coriolis effect is actually responsible for several inaccurate shots. Since you're accounting for something that doesn't actually exist, you can easily see why.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 11:37:53 AM

You mean you didn't even account for gravity (or whatever flat earthers think is responsible for holding things to the ground)?  That must mean that things don't fall and that we are all floating around weightlessly.

It's called Universal Acceleration, and no, I did not account for it.

The Coriolis effect is actually responsible for several inaccurate shots. Since you're accounting for something that doesn't actually exist, you can easily see why.

I can provide many citations proving you wrong.  If a sniper doesn't account for the Coriolis effect then their shots won't be as acurite then if they do.

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 11:42:21 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 11:37:53 AM

You mean you didn't even account for gravity (or whatever flat earthers think is responsible for holding things to the ground)?  That must mean that things don't fall and that we are all floating around weightlessly.

It's called Universal Acceleration, and no, I did not account for it.

The Coriolis effect is actually responsible for several inaccurate shots. Since you're accounting for something that doesn't actually exist, you can easily see why.

I can provide many citations proving you wrong.  If a sniper doesn't account for the Coriolis effect then their shots won't be as acurite then if they do.

And where did you read this? The internet? Scoff.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 11:48:29 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 11:42:21 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 11:37:53 AM

You mean you didn't even account for gravity (or whatever flat earthers think is responsible for holding things to the ground)?  That must mean that things don't fall and that we are all floating around weightlessly.

It's called Universal Acceleration, and no, I did not account for it.

The Coriolis effect is actually responsible for several inaccurate shots. Since you're accounting for something that doesn't actually exist, you can easily see why.

I can provide many citations proving you wrong.  If a sniper doesn't account for the Coriolis effect then their shots won't be as acurite then if they do.

And where did you read this? The internet? Scoff.

So?  I am also reading your post on the Internet.

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 11:24:29 AM

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on April 27, 2015, 11:21:16 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 10:42:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 10:09:01 AM

If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to take into account the Coriolis effect. Wonder why that is?

Because you either got very lucky while you were screwing up your aim, or you are lying.

I used an attachable scope and aimed directly at the target.

So...yeah, exactly what I said.

Didn't you know that Vauxhall is a master marksman capable of accurately hitting targets at 18x a pistol's effective range.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on April 27, 2015, 11:33:41 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 11:24:29 AM

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on April 27, 2015, 11:21:16 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 10:42:42 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 10:09:01 AM

If not then surely you had to take the Coriolis effect into account which happens because of Earth's rotation.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to take into account the Coriolis effect. Wonder why that is?

Because you either got very lucky while you were screwing up your aim, or you are lying.

I used an attachable scope and aimed directly at the target.

So...yeah, exactly what I said.

Didn't you know that Vauxhall is a master marksman capable of accurately hitting targets at 18x a pistol's effective range.

He apparently also is such a good shot that he can ignore physics.

Or he is a liar. Whichever is more probable.

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 11:50:31 AM

And where did you read this? The internet? Scoff.

So?  I am also reading your post on the Internet.

Good observation, but it doesn't change the facts.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 27, 2015, 11:55:55 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on April 27, 2015, 11:50:31 AM

And where did you read this? The internet? Scoff.

So?  I am also reading your post on the Internet.

Good observation, but it doesn't change the facts.

Did you account for wind?  That must not exist either.  Do you see how flawed flat earther logic is?

Of course I would have accounted for wind if it was a windy day, but fortunately there was no wind.

Of course I would have accounted for wind if it was a windy day, but fortunately there was no wind.

Even the slightest breeze could make a huge difference across 1,000 feet with a pistol that is not powerful enough to shoot a bullet that far.