Feb 13 2006, 10:09 am
In response to Vito Stolidus
|
|
Jmurph
 |
I have a 12 gauge slug that would disagree with you about being lethal only at "close range". 00 Buckshot has an effective range of ~50 yards with an ideal range of 20-30 yards. A slug will kill deer at about double the max range of buckshot (100 yards) when fired out of a choked barrel, though at the cost of some accuracy. A rifled barrel can increase this further and are very accurate at 75-100 yards.
|
he's holding a Springfield civil war rifled musket. It seems to shoot like a shotgun. Even so, it is pretty funny.
--Vito | |
Birdshot, which he was using, isn't lethal at long range. That's what he shot. I meant birdshot when I typed that.
BDW, the radio host I'm litening to right now is talking about it: "If you shoot a shotgun shell at a bird, there's no bird left." -- Sean Hannity, 3:23 PM 2/13/06, talking in reference to why Cheney was using birdshot and thus did not kill the man. --Vito | |
Nothing against you Elation, but man, you just got served.
[For the record, I never say served in a manner such as that, but it seems to fit >=D] | |
Tiko wrote:
Nothing against you Elation, but man, you just got served. But I was being sarcastic. <=( Y'know. Sarcy Elly. Or something. But yeah (sorry digitalmouse =( ). | |
Shattered wings wrote:
I said maybe right? Thats means its an OPINION I never said DEFFINETLY this is what happened, maybe you should rethink before posting something also elation? But it's not really subject to opinion. There are facts here. You're 1, 2, 3 seems to be just a guess based on you assuming he knows nothing about hunting. It's already been established that they were wearing safety jackets and that Chaney is a somewhat regular hunter. If you actually read the article it's pretty obvious that this is an accident. Not even Whittington himself is angry. The fact of the matter is walking around shooting stuff is inherantly dangerous. It's not like taking a three hour course on gun and hunting safety makes you bulletproof. | |
Im not saying he did it on purpose, im saying that it couldve been prevented if he kept track of where everyone was before opening fire crazily he had to be pretty close to get that many pellets in the guy, theres about 200 pellets in birdshot he got a little over 100 pellets in his friend so that somewhat says he was 20 yards away from his friend and thats a short distance you have to at least notice a little orange in an OPEN FIELD
| |
Shattered wings wrote:
... or yell out ... Great idea, yell while hunting birds, that won't make them fly away... have you ever hunted? | |
I would imagin that it was not a direct shot, but rather he was hit on the downward arch of the pellets. Think about the size of the average human. Also, don't assume that it was a completely open field. He could have walked out from behind a tree about the time that Cheney pulled the trigger. Hunting accedents happen, get used to it. One of my co-workers nearly blinded a friend in a hunting accedent, in a simular situation, these things happen.
| |
There you go again, assuming you know all the facts. How do you know Cheney was even aware that his friend had wandered off? How do you know it was an open field? Why in the hell would Cheney shoot his own friend? It makes no rational sense at all. Quit trying to prove something, there's nothing to prove. It was an acccident. End of story!
~X | |
Well he was aiming at a Quail. So what I'd assume happened is he seen the second group of Quail, locked his sight in on it, tracked the Quail along for a second while Whittington walked in the direction of it.
So you've got Whittington walking towards the shot, Chaney's focus locked in on a bird flying towards Whittington. There paths meet at the time the shot is fired and Whittington gets hit. I'm not saying they couldn't have been safer, but you're making them sound like a pack of drunken hillbillies who decided to try and catch bullets. | |
DarkView wrote:
I'm not saying they couldn't have been safer, but you're making them sound like a pack of drunken hillbillies who decided to try and catch bullets. They should've been trying to catch mullets instead. They say that a good one will make anybody look like a hillbilly. | |
Xooxer wrote:
Why in the hell would Cheney shoot his own friend? Yeah, if you're going to shoot someone, plugging the millionaire lawyer in the face, and not killing him, is probably not the best idea :P | |
Im just trying to prove thats its an acident that coudve been prevented YOU are jumping to conclusions again by just glancing at my posts i never ONCE said that cheney shot the man on purpose did I? Alls i said is they shouldve been safer, like I said stop going out and attacking me without reading my entire post.
| |
Shattered wings wrote:
Im just trying to prove thats its an acident that coudve been prevented YOU are jumping to conclusions again by just glancing at my posts i never ONCE said that cheney shot the man on purpose did I? Alls i said is they shouldve been safer, like I said stop going out and attacking me without reading my entire post. Dude, chill out. Of COURSE it was an accident. He shot his partner while hunting! There's nothing you need to prove here. You're the one who needs to read. Scoobert (or anybody else) never said anything about shooting the guy on purpose. | |
Sarm, Xooxer implyed that I said he purposely shot the man
Xooxer wrote: There you go again, assuming you know all the facts. How do you know Cheney was even aware that his friend had wandered off? How do you know it was an open field? Why in the hell would Cheney shoot his own friend? It makes no rational sense at all. Quit trying to prove something, there's nothing to prove. It was an acccident. End of story! The bold letters is where he was basicly saying that I said he purposely shot a man. | |
In Xooxer's defense, he didn't say that until after you said that you didn't say it was on purpose.
And that sentence was confusing to type. | |
Okay, this seems to have run its course and is degenerating into arguments over semantics.
Topic closed. | |