Occupied Deutschland wrote:Camicon wrote:To my knowledge, NASA never developed rockets for the purpose of exploding them on a target
No, but that was what rockets were historically first designed for (note: this may be a bit of an overexpansion as one might point to the rocket-driven-arrows used by China/Korea instead, which weren't designed for exploding on a target as much as expanding the range for the arrow, but I think it's a fair expansion in the context being discussed relating to 'killing people').
Clearly all rockets were and are designed for that, then.
Camicon wrote:but please, tell me more about these firearms that aren't designed to punch hole in things with lethally fast chunks of lead.
Tell me about the rockets that wouldn't seriously fuck-up someone's day if they landed on (or near) them?
'Designed to punch hole in things with fast chunks of lead' is not the same as 'designed for killing people'. Much as 'designed to punch through the atmosphere to get astronauts to SPACE for later return' is not the same as 'Punch through the atmosphere to get our nukes into SPACE for later return (at a different locale)' because the two describe different uses for overlapping categories of objects (firearms and rockets). Hence why one typically doesn't lambast NASA's rockets as military weapons designed for killing people (despite rockets historical development from such a point) and why on shouldn't paint all firearm as weapons designed for killing people (despite firearms historical development from such a point).
*shrug* It's a rather long-running misperception I've gotten very tired of hearing at this point.
Nobody is saying that rockets can't, or don't, kill people. I certainly haven't said that, nor have I contested that they were initially made to blow shit up. The point I'm making is that rockets which space agencies use are made specifically to transport things into outer space, and using them for any other purpose would be a bastardization. Much like how cars are designed to transport people from Point A to Point B, but some people use them as a weapon to kill people.
NASA rockets, much like cars, and not made for the purpose of killing people.
Firearms, on the other hand, are almost uniformly made for the purpose of killing things, those used for target shooting being the only exception that comes to mind. What percentage of firearms in the US do you think are designed specifically for target shooting take up?
And, of course, this entire line of questioning ignores that nobody is trying to put rockets in every American home. We acknowledge that they are dangerous, and can pose a serious threat to the safety of the public, so we don't let people stock up on RPG's. The same cannot be said for firearms in the US.
greed and death wrote:Camicon wrote:Firearms propel chunks of lead at blindingly fast speeds, for the sole intent of punching holes in things. The only kind of firearm you could might be able to contend is not designed to punch holes in living creatures would be those designed specifically for target-shooting, and how often do you think those are used in firearm crime?
Given that early firearms had to be shot
en masse in the general direction of your target to have any hope of hitting it at range, I think we can safely say that firearms were designed with large military engagements, and personal defence at very close range, in mind. Unless you can think of some other reason firearms were developed?
Not all firearms do that many are designed to propel plastic pieces(beanbag gun) to disperse a crowd, others propel pieces that are too small punch holes in things(BB gun), and other still do not fire projectiles at all ( starter pistols).
Likewise there are hammers designed solely for getting through armor and killing people(the goedendag).
Those differences would be due to the ammunition (or lack thereof), not the firearm (BB guns are not firearms).
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:55 pm
Not even the same county.