Basic stamp with gun??

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 recreation.

JM

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.

Tom

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.

--kyler

No, what we'll have to do is qualify what is "useful" & what isn't, & who gets to decide what is or isn't "useful" for YOU.

JM

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.

--kyler

:>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, DLC

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 envisioned.

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.

JM

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.

Regards, John.

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

HeHe - RoboCop was a classic in that it consistently managed not to take itself too seriously, yet the movie-makers appeared to have a good understanding into what is presently possible with robot technology (apart from "robocop" himself of course) and in corporate settings - "eager young employee volunters for doomed looser project" stretched aaalll the way ;-)

No, a machine designed to kill people would be called a snowboard.

A Gunn diode perhaps?

Robin G Hewitt

I shoot IPSC, PPC, IDPA, sporting clays, long range rifle, and just about every shooting discipline ... every one is a legitimate TARGET shooting discipline. Hunting and varmint control are also useful activities conducted with firearms. My firearms are TOOLS and not weapons. They are useful because I enjoy shooting them, and they instill discipline and good safety habits. But that's just me.

Firearms have never been a problem. Irresponsible use of them has always been a problem. Solve the human element, and the problem disappears.

So, if your "family members and friends" had a firearm to defend themselves successfully against those who would harm them, would those firearms be "bad" firearms, or would your "family members and friends" be bad people, or would your "family members and friends" simply still be alive today?

Any weapon in your own hands has the potential to be a "good" weapon or a bad "weapon". Firearms can be either -- but it all depends upon the hand that holds it.

My firearms are a mixture of weapons and sporting pieces. I make no apology for having them, you should not feel obliged to explain why you have yours. I've always though a strain gauge would make an excellent trigger mechanism but as I don't collect post-1870 it's not something I will be trying.

best regards

Robin G Hewitt

Read this page and see if you want your robot (no matter how advanced) to fire a gun...

"October 11, 1989 80 miles southeast of Norfolk, Va.

USS EL PASO (LKA-177) accidentally hits the USS IWO JIMA with rounds from its Phalanx CIWS during gunnery practice. One sailor aboard IWO JIMA is killed and another is injured. Damage is slight."

You could combine the stain gauge trigger, with a fingerprint ID panel

-- like the kind on some mice -- so only you could fire the gun.

"This is the .44 Magnum, the most intelligent handgun in the world... Did it fire six shots, or only five? Well, punk, let's ask it..." Okay, so it's not quite as dramatic!

(BTW, contrary to popular belief, Clint Eastwood favors modest gun control. He also doesn't smoke, abstains from junk food, and doesn't even drink carbonated beverages. And while we're at it, Arnold is not made of titanium. Sigh. What the movies make us believe...)

-- Gordon Author: Constructing Robot Bases, Robot Builder's Sourcebook, Robot Builder's Bonanza