Are you the same guy that's been asking about this on the Basic Stamp Yahoo
Group? I don't think I want to know what exactly it is you have in mind.
Sure it could be done but you'll get no advice from me, nothing personal.
Dave <blank> wrote:
: Are you the same guy that's been asking about this on the Basic Stamp Yahoo
: Group? I don't think I want to know what exactly it is you have in mind.
: Sure it could be done but you'll get no advice from me, nothing personal.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
* Dennis Clark email@example.com www.techtoystoday.com *
I keep trying to picture this "Basic Stamp with gun" product. Where is
the gun kept on the Basic Stamp? Do they still use a 24-pin carrier?
What kind of permit does this Stamp need to carry this gun, assuming
it's not in Texas?
Author: Constructing Robot Bases (Now Available)
Robot Builder's Sourcebook, Robot Builder's Bonanza
The second year after the war was done here(Bosnia) I gave the gun back to
the police. I don't really like them and what they can do
You have to see it with your own eyes what they do :'( I think you would
think the same as me Robin. It is good that you keep them on a good and safe
place but still it should be a place only you know and nobody else, just
because of the security reasons.
No, the firearm used to kill/injure had to be loaded, aimed and fired by a
human being (or robot -- I guess), and so there is nothing inherently evil
in what can be used as a very useful tool -- safely and without harming
anyone. By the same token, anything can be used as a weapon, given intent
to do harm, but of themselves, firearms are no more inherently evil than a
Having said that, there are electronic firing mechanisms -- Remington I
believe had a battery operated firing mechanism which was designed to
reduce lock time of the mechanical system (the time from trigger pull to
firing pin strike of primer) and thus increase accuracy. I'm not sure
whether that rifle is still in production, but it did require a special
primer which used an electrical impulse rather than a physical strike to
ignite the round. It was called the Etron ...
As a firearms safety instructor, and range safety officer, I would have
some serious problems, however with attaching a firearm to any mechanical
or electronic device. If this is intended as a booby trap -- almost ALL
jurisdictions have criminal sanctions against non-descriminating weapons
which might cause fatal injuries -- and quite rightly so!
Multiple individuals may engage in a competition, where each attempts
to hit identical targets. Each individual is positioned the same
distance from their target, & other conditions are set so as to be the
same for each individual. Multiple shots are fired by each
individual, with each firing the same number as all the others.
Measurements are taken of the distances that each shot hits from the
center of the target, with points being awarded for the closest shots.
The individual who scores the highest wins the competition.
It's quite a bit of fun, & a very challenging activity; useful for
Well, I wasn't really counting target shooting. Not "useful" in my book,
except when training soldiers who, oh yes, use the skill to kill people.
However, having been in the CCF at my old school, I've been lucky enough to
do plenty of rifle shoots (including full auto LSW) on army ranges all over
the UK, and I must say it is damn good fun.
Great. Next we'll have to explain how tennis rackets can be used without
harming anyone and still be a useful tool lest someone bans them.
(BTW, *I* have put autoloading pistols to good use and I haven't harmed
anyone as a result.)
Back on topic...more prior art.
Automatic firing machine guns and automatic search
lights provided additional deterrent.
Am I the only one who finds it particularly amusing that someone on
comp.robotics.misc would get all hung up on what some versions of a
class of devices were designed to do? I suppose none of us should
ever use Polaroid ultrasonic sensors for robots because they were
designed to focus cameras and must never be put to any other use.
:>A tennis racket isn't a machine designed to kill people.
: Am I the only one who finds it particularly amusing that someone on
: comp.robotics.misc would get all hung up on what some versions of a
: class of devices were designed to do? I suppose none of us should
: ever use Polaroid ultrasonic sensors for robots because they were
: designed to focus cameras and must never be put to any other use.
I'm obviously not the only one that notices that some people insist
on being obtuse about the "designed to kill someone" definition. Not
that this discussion belongs here anyway, but...
The issue was never about using something for other than what it was
designed for (as I understand it), but rather the pushups that get done
trying to gloss over the fact that a handgun is designed to kill people,
it has no other real function. Target shooting, yaddayadda, straw dog,
target shooting usually mimics shooting a person. I can use a claw hammer
to put in a screw, but that doesn't change what the hammer was designed
for (as a class.)
Now, before someone mentions that famous "evil WW II person", lets ditch
the NRA vs. the world thread before it gets REALLY acrimonious.
have fun, regardless,
* Dennis Clark firstname.lastname@example.org www.techtoystoday.com *
Just because some people are unable to comprehend more than one use
for an item doesn't mean that no other uses exist, or are invalid.
There are also apparently those who believe that a robot's only
purpose can be to enslave the human race. This newsgroup is full of
threads describing uses for some item other than what its designers
Regarding intent, there is intent both on the part of the designer and
the user, and they may not necessarily be the same. A firearm is
designed to expel a projectile accurately, up to a maximum distance.
Whether that capatility is utilized by the user to kill another person
is up to the user. A firearm is definitely a dangerous tool, and must
be used and handled carefully. Were the design intent to "kill
people", there are much more efficient ways to do so.
There's a bit of an undertone going on here that killing a person is
itself not a valid purpose. There are circumstances where taking a
life is legitimate, and the law in most jurisdictions recognizes this.
Actually, those guys are just trolls. Or zealots. Ignore them.
Umm, this is wrong. Countless generations of craftsmen, scientists and
engineers didn't spend centuries constantly improving and refining a device
on the off chance somebody wanted to move a lead sphere at enormous velocity
some day, they did it so that their country's army had a better chance of
wiping their opponents off the map. And there is no better or more
efficient way to kill people than with a gun (unless you're not bothered
about civilian casualties or destroying the area you want to capture along
with the people defending it, in which case artillery, napalm and air
strikes are probably your best bet).
In self defence, if the target is actually sending projectiles your way and
you have no other option, then yes. But even then it's nothing to be proud
of. It's a waste of a life. Under any other circumstances, even if an
unrepentant mass murderer stands in the dock before you, execution is not
justifiable as long as a less destructive alternative exists, and I would
not choose to support a government or organisation that thought otherwise.
A gun is dangerous. So is an "evil" person. But just as a gun can be
rendered completely safe by correct handling, without destroying it, so can
an "evil" person.
Are you saying that the original design intent of the firearm was not to
kill people? Really?
It was efficient because it alllowed you to kill someone and stay far enough
away so they couldn't kill you.
Same design criteria as a bow and arrow.
The original design of the *handgun* was to kill people. And I
believe that that is its only purpose.
People use it for other purposes (target shooting and hunting),
but the purpose of a handgun is purely to kill *people*.
I also believe that a handgun makes it much too easy to kill
people. Therefore I won't own one. Besides, a pump action
shot-gun is better for home defense.
That being said, I do believe that there are purposes for
which a handgun is useful, such as concealed self-defense.
D. Jay Newman
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.