Just because Im bored, and showing how semantics can rear its ugly head.

I know that you mean breath in space, unassisted, but you didnt specify. So I could argue that you can "Breath Oxygen in outter space."

Heres why, astronauts do it all the time, they take it with them and keep it locked in things like in the space shuttle and spacesuits. Thus a person can breath Oxygen in outter space.

As for the orginal topic, Austere, Ray and other have made it pretty clear on those answers.

As I said before:

So I don’t think it’s not so much a question of semantics as the absence of a desire to actually understand what is being said.

Take idioms for example. If I say: “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse.” Or “To take the bull by the horns” we both know what this mean. What would happen if people decided to take the words (substantives) literally without making the effort to understand the meaning? Absolute confusion.

Language is limited and subjective. Most information communicated through the use of a language is actually not specified.

For example, when you say you love someone, do you specify and explain every single reason why? Of course you don't, that would be burdening your communication so much it would take you ages to communicate anything to others. It would be way too impractical to even be considered.

So If I say: “Humans can’t breath in space”, in this specific context a majority of people would interpret that I meant without assistance. Different contexts would imply different interpretations, but in this context, the actual meaning of the sentence is obvious.

So in your example, in my opinion, it’s more of a question of ill intentions than a misinterpretation due to semantics.

Telling someone love them doesnt need an explaination why, because in most cases there is no reason. But if pressed you could make up a reason.

But back to semantics, I was only using your obivious phrase to show how easily sematics can be used to disprove you. Actually its quite easy to find people that know nothing about space and its hazards, so you saying a person in space cant breath may say to a person that there is a special reason they cant, medical or otherwise, lack of oxygen in space may not even be a reason to them as to why they cant.

I met a 30+ year old man a few years back, he had no idea our planet was in a solar system that was in a galaxy one of many in the universe. I was showing him an article in Time magazine about the Hubble capturing photos of two galaxies colliding. I then had to explain to him that space is not a huge empty space and that yeah shit can hit the Earth, and it happens to things all the time. What caused the dinosaurs to die off and what makes the moond surface looks that way must have been a shell shocker when I told him to go tot eh library and get books on space. So taking peoples knowledge about a subject for granted is not all that reasonable. When you started this post about guns I bet almost everyone assumed you knew enugh when they started posting, then after your revelation they had to rethink their explinations.

Its been derailed so many times, do you really think it was going to get back on track? Even the original poster took it way out on a tangent, so he must have been satisfied with the answers hes gotten so far.

Dont forget the moral debate about the evils of guns that always comes along with a gun discussion, the nature of china and their censorship and how to prnounce french words and how badly the swiss are at it.

That was the segway.

... and the short treatise on the French in North America, a brief summary of Seeker's life, and more than a few posts commenting on the off-topic nature of many posts.

Where did Ginger come from?

(The word you're looking for is "segue")

~J

Sadly, Latin, and not French in origin.

Yes, Sault Ste. Marie is on the border of Ontario in Michgan's UP (Upper Penninsula), but Detroit is also on the border of Ontario, seperated by the aformentioned Detroit River sometimes by as little as 2 miles. During Prohibition, in the winter, rum-runners would drive their cars across the frozen Detroit River to buy booze from Canada to sell in speakeasies in the States.

So you are probably correct in your understanding that the French explorers stayed close to Ontario, but south-east Michigan is VERY close to Ontario. Parts of Detroit are actually north of Windsor, Onatrio (which is a very nice city, I might add.)

If you are going to modify autofire to be more deadly (and more realistic) would you really allow cover to become armor?

That neat video posted a few weeks back, what was it called, concealment doesnt mean cover or something like that, showed that larger machine guns had no real issue with shooting through normal average material commonly used as cover. Light Machine guns were easily punching through block walls and then still penetrating body armor, or continuing through the rest of the building.

that should be handled by comparing the penetration ability of the round to the ability of the cover to resist penetration. in other words, cover should provide armor based on the material the cover is made of. a bush will provide no ballistic armor and maybe a point or three of impact armor. cement will provide moderate ballistic armor (enough to stop a handgun round, but not enough to stop an LMG or bigger round) and high impact armor.

Depends on the handgun round. IIRC, a .44 magnum can go into - if not through - an engine block.

Now, if you'd like.

So would you consider an overly simplistic way to show this as handguns would be penalized by all the barrier rating and machince guns penalized by half (or less) of the barrier rating? Havent really put much thought to it, seeing that some hand guns could shoot through much more then others and some machine guns less than others. Plus that puts ARs and SMGs into a wierd limbo.

Then ammo considerations.

Depending upon its role. Traditionally, the Light Machine Gun is crew-served (gunner and spotter, or gunner, spotter and ammunition handler). The role the M249 SAW as an individual weapon is referred to by the US Army as the "automatic rifle" role. I mention this because the M60 and M240 are also considered useful in the traditional, crew-served "light machine gun" role (along with the M249), but are generally considered a bit heavy for use as an "automatic rifle" (the ability to carry enough ammunition being the limiting factor).

This is true, but could be a bit misleading. At long range, an LMG is designed to affect an area (as in a few square meters; the beaten zone) rather than a point (as in a single person, or said person's head). According to the US Army field manuals, the M16A2/A3/A4 has the same effective range as the M249 (800 meters, unmounted) in the role you were referring to, but that applies to area targets for both weapons. Point effective ranges are also similar (M16: 550m, M249: 600m) but with the M249, you've still got the benefits of automatic fire (as it can't fire any other way). The area effective range of a tripod-mounted M249 is 1,000 meters. Obviously, the M16 is not designed to be tripod-mounted, but if you did (and you can, with a rail fore-end and the appropriate adapter on the tripod) the range would likely be similar.

However, most newer assault rifles are going to have much shorter barrels than the M16A2, so generally speaking, they're likely to have shorter range as well. So you're not wrong, but I thought it could use a bit more explanation considering the company.

"Into" would depend entirely upon the bullet (definitely possible), but I doubt a .44 Mag is going to make it through any engine block larger than maybe a small motorcycle at best.

.45 ACP is better than 9x19mm in any case, period. Anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or mentally retarded in some fashion.

The .44 Magnum is reliably stopped by Level IIIA body armor, the concealable armor worn by police officers under their uniforms.

Immaterial -- there's likely no ribcage pressed against the engine block the .44 is trying to shoot though (which was the only reason that skinny little vest was brought up).

Alive?

I mean, really, everything else is gravy.

Well, for home defense, I'd really recommend a pump, and that you show her how to use it. There are really just less things to go wrong with one so long as you can operate it and doing that even under stress isn't difficult. I think the best option for this type of thing is the Mossberg 500. You can get a 12 gauge with an 18.5" barrel for about $250 new. Another option would be to buy a 500 with a 28" vent rib barrel that she could use for skeet/trap, and a second 18.5" barrel for about $70 which would be handy for home defense. The barrels are very easy to change out. Using a pump for skeet isn't easy, but it'll certainly teach you how to use it.

If your heart is set on an auto, your choices are a bit more limited. There aren't a whole lot of autos that are made for defense, at least that don't cost more than they should (usually in the $600-800 range), and they aren't usually convertible. I recently bought a used Mossberg 9200 auto with a 28" barrel for bird hunting, then I bought an 18.5" riot barrel from Havlin Sales and that combo works perfectly. Unfortunately, I don't think Mossberg is making 18.5" barrels for the 930, which replaced the 9200 a few years ago. So if you can find a used 9200, that's a good, inexpensive route to go (including a 3-point sling and a 3-shot mag extension tube, I spent about $400 on that rig).

Neither one of those. Something small and easy to operate, like a little 5-shot .38 revolver or a Kel-Tec PF9 or P11. No safeties, no bullshit. Load, point, click.

According to recent research, the most terrifying sound to hear when breaking and entering is the sound of a pump-action shotgun being cocked. Psychological advantages serve the home-owner well...

I would've thought the sound of a belt-fed MG being cocked would be even more terrifying... though perhaps slightly less recognizable to the general public.