Graeme William Burton in custody

[Crasherfromwayback]

Both.....?

[James Deuce]

Wrong. A shooter is normally expecting the shock and has positioned himself to absorb the recoil.... and larger calibre rifles have recoil damping systems. The barret has a muzzle brake thing and some of the larger 20mm sniper rifles have large recoil tubes, these dissipate the energy away from the shooter,

Nope not wrong in the strictest sense of this particular argument. To knock a person back many feet even a weapon with recoil management would knock the shooter back some feet.

Those are specialist weapons designed for performance over range, and the energy involved is orders of magnitude greater than a hand gun, such as an M1911A firing .45ACP that is shown in the movies to pick the target up, fling him 3 metres across the room, and out a window.

I suggest you download the Myth Busters episode and have a look.

Muzzle brakes and recoil minimisation systems are cheating in the sense that they aren't actually part of the spirit of the argument.

[sAsLEX]

Muzzle brakes and recoil minimisation systems are cheating in the sense that they aren't actually part of the spirit of the argument.

But 20mm rifles are neat.

[Shadows]

Marijuana?

Everybody knows it all gets grown indoors these days!

[jrandom]

... an M1911A firing .45ACP that is shown in the movies to pick the target up, fling him 3 metres across the room, and out a window.

To be honest, I can't actually think of a movie that's shown this.

Can you name one? Did they show any film clips on that Mythbusters episode?

[James Deuce]

Poetic License?

[Squeak the Rat]

To be honest, I can't actually think of a movie that's shown this.

Can you name one?

Crocodile2: Death Swamp.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Everybody knows it all gets grown indoors these days!

lol...plenty of traditionalists still out there mate!

[riffer]

To be honest, I can't actually think of a movie that's shown this.

Can you name one? Did they show any film clips on that Mythbusters episode?

You're obviously too young to remember all the black and white Westerns on the telly on Sundays Dan.

[scumdog]

Wrong. A shooter is normally expecting the shock and has positioned himself to absorb the recoil.... ,

Bollocks, it's still the same energy only in the shooters case it has to move the gun first before it moves the shooter.

Try firing a 303 or 308 one handed like a pistol - sure it jumps but it aint going to break your arm - or push you back yet as far as physics are concerned the gun has fired 180 grains one way and 3.8kg the other.

If the 'other guy' was aiming at you and your bullet struck his rifle on the muzzle his rifle would only (approx) jump back the same amount as yours.

But yeah, we all brace ourselves against the recoil normally.

[jrandom]

You're obviously too young to remember all the black and white Westerns on the telly on Sundays Dan.

We didn't have a telly when I were a lad.

[Sniper]

Regardless of energy transfer, recoil ect, we all know what bullets can do though dont we.

[doc]

Bollocks, it's still the same energy only in the shooters case it has to move the gun first before it moves the shooter.

But yeah, we all brace ourselves against the recoil normally.

You mean by using the "Flinch" method

[doc]

We didn't have a telly when I were a lad.

Them were the days

[Ixion]

Can't have it both ways. Re-institute the death penalty and you have a very good chance that 1 in 3 people you execute are innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of. Not necessarily innocent people, but innocent of the crimes they are executed for. The moral framework that used to support the death penalty was as black and white as the judiciary that ran it.

That isn't the case anymore. Change is a constant. Adapt or die. Which is what Darwin really said.

There's been a lot of stuff posted on KB that could be regarded as seditious, and in a couple of cases downright treasonable. The both used to be punishable by death in the "Home" Isles.

So what is it folks? Execute all criminals for all crimes? Or none? There isn't any middle ground, despite what the liberal losers and kooky conservatives will claim. Some of you blokes flatting better stop stealing toilet paper from work, and I had better stop absently walking off with other people's pens.

Nonsense. Of course there is. Though connecting the death penalty with any particular crime is a mistake. The test should be whether society overall is (or was or will be) a better place because of the person in question remaining in it. If the answer is "yes", then it is illogical to remove them from it. If they have committed some crime, take such steps as are appropriate to recompense any victims, and then move on (and, yes, that does sort of imply that victimless crimes cease to be crimes).


Few are paragons. All of us do "bad stuff" occasionally. Most people, the contribution they make - driving those trucks, digging those ditches, writing those poems, raising those children, balancing those books - outweighs by far their minor pecadillos. Society is better off for their presence.

But if the assessment is that society is a worse place for having that person in it, then it is illogical to allow him to remain. If some other country will have him, then let him go in peace. If no one else will have him, then he must be removed. Not murder (which by definition requires malice). Not revenge. Just simple logic. If the only value that a person can contribute to society is to be a source of donor organs, then let it be so . (The old and sick are another matter, as of course are the young. We are talking about those who CAN but WILL not contribute)