x
Click to expand

ostemad

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:11/05/2012
Last Login:4/16/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#15331
Highest Content Rank:#11713
Highest Comment Rank:#4461
Content Thumbs: 14 total,  29 ,  15
Comment Thumbs: 1457 total,  1672 ,  215
Content Level Progress: 30.5% (18/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 80% (80/100)
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:4501
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:477
FJ Points:1421

latest user's comments

#7 - Nope it makes him a patriot that fights for god and country. 04/06/2015 on Snackbar 0
#39 - phone salesman are are the ones with sound. 03/28/2015 on Pop up Ad 0
#303 - yes 03/28/2015 on Friday Night, whatcha doing? 0
#66 - you can't compare an airhorn to a f-35. sry if m…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/26/2015 on Dewalt 0
#68 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
I am not saying that some of these things can not be done by other means.... Just not an air horn.

And I am not comparing the sound levels of an f-35 to a foghorn... the jet is obviously louder.... I was using it as an example that people near airports will complain about noise... they WILL complain.

I can't find any strictly civilian examples of shot line use, all I can find are use with just military, or between the two... But this is semantics... I already conceded this one to you as obscure use....

And if you want to go back to his "original question" , my list shows how they can be used to not kill people... even if you could use some thing else for EVERY one of the items on the list, it doesn't change the fact that guns CAN be used, as tools, for many NON violent things...
#64 - doubt neighbours of an airport would complain about the sound.…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/26/2015 on Dewalt 0
User avatar #65 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
You think people around airports won't complain about noise??? Do a Google search on Burlington international airport and the proposed F-35 stationing... but even if no one complained at all...this still doesn't change the fact that the horn is less effective...

Saying a howitzer is not a gun because it's artillery is unfathomably ridiculous... the howitzer, and all artillery (especially naval) , are the very DEFINITION of a gun, and is what I was referring to in my original response.

If I were a bunch of partying snowboards out for thrills, I suppose an air horn would work great for triggering an avalanche... but , again, as I originally mentioned, when dealing with people's safety, of course I would want FULL avalanche control.

Yes freighters do use rangefinders, as do Navy ships, and yes they ALSO use a metered line... and they launch it using the same METHOD as Navy ship ( perhaps with a different type of rifle). But still this is irrelevant.. Even if only a rangefinder was used... they are still not going to use an air horn or fog horn to replace it...

so if you had said that half of the things I had listed could be replaced with range finders, explosives, fireworks, AND foghorn / air horns... I would have agreed with you...

but you didn't... you said... "You could use a foghorn/airhorn in half of those situations."

well, I guess, ACTUALLY you could use a foghorn/airhorn in every one of those situations, just would work very well if at all...
#66 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
you can't compare an airhorn to a f-35.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXBdjgQOFg

sry if my terms of gun doesn't fit yours, but i'm pretty sure quantumranger was talking about handheld guns, rifles and shotguns. Where a airhorn is just as effective. Full avalanche control needs systematic placement of explosives, if a howitzer were more effective they would use that. I believe the howitzer is used because it's the cheapest way. You can demolish a old building with a tank, but its main purpose is still war and not demolition/construction.

Never seen cargoships need a line between them for measure or communication, but deliver a reliable source and i believe you. You are bending my words, never said a airhorn could replace a rangefinder. "The last one is purely military and the easiest way atm, you won't see freightships or fishingships do it".

Competetive shooting is the only civilian place for a practical use of guns. So scaring birds and deer, starting pistol and avalanche if you compare it to a rifle 3. It's still about the sound which can be mimicked, except when you need to hit a target at a distance, like hunting where the purpose is to kill.
#68 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
I am not saying that some of these things can not be done by other means.... Just not an air horn.

And I am not comparing the sound levels of an f-35 to a foghorn... the jet is obviously louder.... I was using it as an example that people near airports will complain about noise... they WILL complain.

I can't find any strictly civilian examples of shot line use, all I can find are use with just military, or between the two... But this is semantics... I already conceded this one to you as obscure use....

And if you want to go back to his "original question" , my list shows how they can be used to not kill people... even if you could use some thing else for EVERY one of the items on the list, it doesn't change the fact that guns CAN be used, as tools, for many NON violent things...
#62 - #3 wut #5 you could get a foghorn as effective. Maybe not …  [+] (5 new replies) 03/26/2015 on Dewalt 0
User avatar #63 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
#3 ....... O,o ....+1


#5, I am willing to meet you halfway on the airport... until the neighbors killed you... with the foghorn... +.5

#6,The explosives argument would be a step in the opposite direction from guns as opposed to air horns. You said "Fog horns / air horns" could be used in half of the situations, had you said "explosives" I would have more inclined to agree with you on 50%.

Secure communication AND measure distance. Freighter use it more for the later while moving alongside at sea. They use the same method as the Navy.

The tube, flare, fireworks, rocket argument is semantics, and we could go all night with it... doesn't sound fun to me... BUT... again a tube flare is STILL not a Foghorn / air horn.

Even if I drop the Naval use one as obscure I can still only offer you a 1.5 outta 6 (25%) still not half.....

#64 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
doubt neighbours of an airport would complain about the sound.

My point is that unless you want full avalanche control, shouting and airhorn is almost as good as a gun(not counting howitzer as a gun, it's artillery).

Don't think freighters carry m-14 unless they are near somalia or in malacca. They use rangefinders for that.

Not gunhating(like the shootingrange myself), but using guns where other tools are more practical is just redneck.
User avatar #65 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
You think people around airports won't complain about noise??? Do a Google search on Burlington international airport and the proposed F-35 stationing... but even if no one complained at all...this still doesn't change the fact that the horn is less effective...

Saying a howitzer is not a gun because it's artillery is unfathomably ridiculous... the howitzer, and all artillery (especially naval) , are the very DEFINITION of a gun, and is what I was referring to in my original response.

If I were a bunch of partying snowboards out for thrills, I suppose an air horn would work great for triggering an avalanche... but , again, as I originally mentioned, when dealing with people's safety, of course I would want FULL avalanche control.

Yes freighters do use rangefinders, as do Navy ships, and yes they ALSO use a metered line... and they launch it using the same METHOD as Navy ship ( perhaps with a different type of rifle). But still this is irrelevant.. Even if only a rangefinder was used... they are still not going to use an air horn or fog horn to replace it...

so if you had said that half of the things I had listed could be replaced with range finders, explosives, fireworks, AND foghorn / air horns... I would have agreed with you...

but you didn't... you said... "You could use a foghorn/airhorn in half of those situations."

well, I guess, ACTUALLY you could use a foghorn/airhorn in every one of those situations, just would work very well if at all...
#66 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
you can't compare an airhorn to a f-35.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXBdjgQOFg

sry if my terms of gun doesn't fit yours, but i'm pretty sure quantumranger was talking about handheld guns, rifles and shotguns. Where a airhorn is just as effective. Full avalanche control needs systematic placement of explosives, if a howitzer were more effective they would use that. I believe the howitzer is used because it's the cheapest way. You can demolish a old building with a tank, but its main purpose is still war and not demolition/construction.

Never seen cargoships need a line between them for measure or communication, but deliver a reliable source and i believe you. You are bending my words, never said a airhorn could replace a rangefinder. "The last one is purely military and the easiest way atm, you won't see freightships or fishingships do it".

Competetive shooting is the only civilian place for a practical use of guns. So scaring birds and deer, starting pistol and avalanche if you compare it to a rifle 3. It's still about the sound which can be mimicked, except when you need to hit a target at a distance, like hunting where the purpose is to kill.
#68 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
I am not saying that some of these things can not be done by other means.... Just not an air horn.

And I am not comparing the sound levels of an f-35 to a foghorn... the jet is obviously louder.... I was using it as an example that people near airports will complain about noise... they WILL complain.

I can't find any strictly civilian examples of shot line use, all I can find are use with just military, or between the two... But this is semantics... I already conceded this one to you as obscure use....

And if you want to go back to his "original question" , my list shows how they can be used to not kill people... even if you could use some thing else for EVERY one of the items on the list, it doesn't change the fact that guns CAN be used, as tools, for many NON violent things...
#59 - #3 starting pistol... i've seen airhorns, whistles and even a …  [+] (7 new replies) 03/26/2015 on Dewalt 0
User avatar #61 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
#3 how sad your life must be (this is the one I gave you)
#5 not NEARLY as effective
#6 Ever seen the guns they use to intentionally trigger avalanches? The biggest fog horn in the world won't do that. They use friggin' Howitzers. And most major ski resorts and very large number of high elevation municipalities do this many times a year. So, yes, they CAN be triggered by accident with smaller means... but the "good" kind really need a gun. And they ARE done often.

Yeah and lets see you toss one of those roadside flares up high enough to be seen...

or are you talking about the ones in the long tubes where you pull the cord which ignites a propellant and launches it out the tube, up into the sky? Like a gun?... which uses an ignited propellant to push an object out a tube......

And yes freight ships do it to... fishing ships use harpoons...(also a gun)
#62 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
#3 wut
#5 you could get a foghorn as effective. Maybe not practical to move but neither is an airport.
#6 No, i believe most ski places use explosives if they really want to be sure. If you're in the wildernes and already carry a gun for protection, there's no need for a foghorn.

a tube that fires a flare is as much a gun as firework, and why would freight and fishing ships need to establish secure communication?
User avatar #63 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
#3 ....... O,o ....+1


#5, I am willing to meet you halfway on the airport... until the neighbors killed you... with the foghorn... +.5

#6,The explosives argument would be a step in the opposite direction from guns as opposed to air horns. You said "Fog horns / air horns" could be used in half of the situations, had you said "explosives" I would have more inclined to agree with you on 50%.

Secure communication AND measure distance. Freighter use it more for the later while moving alongside at sea. They use the same method as the Navy.

The tube, flare, fireworks, rocket argument is semantics, and we could go all night with it... doesn't sound fun to me... BUT... again a tube flare is STILL not a Foghorn / air horn.

Even if I drop the Naval use one as obscure I can still only offer you a 1.5 outta 6 (25%) still not half.....

#64 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
doubt neighbours of an airport would complain about the sound.

My point is that unless you want full avalanche control, shouting and airhorn is almost as good as a gun(not counting howitzer as a gun, it's artillery).

Don't think freighters carry m-14 unless they are near somalia or in malacca. They use rangefinders for that.

Not gunhating(like the shootingrange myself), but using guns where other tools are more practical is just redneck.
User avatar #65 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
You think people around airports won't complain about noise??? Do a Google search on Burlington international airport and the proposed F-35 stationing... but even if no one complained at all...this still doesn't change the fact that the horn is less effective...

Saying a howitzer is not a gun because it's artillery is unfathomably ridiculous... the howitzer, and all artillery (especially naval) , are the very DEFINITION of a gun, and is what I was referring to in my original response.

If I were a bunch of partying snowboards out for thrills, I suppose an air horn would work great for triggering an avalanche... but , again, as I originally mentioned, when dealing with people's safety, of course I would want FULL avalanche control.

Yes freighters do use rangefinders, as do Navy ships, and yes they ALSO use a metered line... and they launch it using the same METHOD as Navy ship ( perhaps with a different type of rifle). But still this is irrelevant.. Even if only a rangefinder was used... they are still not going to use an air horn or fog horn to replace it...

so if you had said that half of the things I had listed could be replaced with range finders, explosives, fireworks, AND foghorn / air horns... I would have agreed with you...

but you didn't... you said... "You could use a foghorn/airhorn in half of those situations."

well, I guess, ACTUALLY you could use a foghorn/airhorn in every one of those situations, just would work very well if at all...
#66 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
you can't compare an airhorn to a f-35.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXBdjgQOFg

sry if my terms of gun doesn't fit yours, but i'm pretty sure quantumranger was talking about handheld guns, rifles and shotguns. Where a airhorn is just as effective. Full avalanche control needs systematic placement of explosives, if a howitzer were more effective they would use that. I believe the howitzer is used because it's the cheapest way. You can demolish a old building with a tank, but its main purpose is still war and not demolition/construction.

Never seen cargoships need a line between them for measure or communication, but deliver a reliable source and i believe you. You are bending my words, never said a airhorn could replace a rangefinder. "The last one is purely military and the easiest way atm, you won't see freightships or fishingships do it".

Competetive shooting is the only civilian place for a practical use of guns. So scaring birds and deer, starting pistol and avalanche if you compare it to a rifle 3. It's still about the sound which can be mimicked, except when you need to hit a target at a distance, like hunting where the purpose is to kill.
#68 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
I am not saying that some of these things can not be done by other means.... Just not an air horn.

And I am not comparing the sound levels of an f-35 to a foghorn... the jet is obviously louder.... I was using it as an example that people near airports will complain about noise... they WILL complain.

I can't find any strictly civilian examples of shot line use, all I can find are use with just military, or between the two... But this is semantics... I already conceded this one to you as obscure use....

And if you want to go back to his "original question" , my list shows how they can be used to not kill people... even if you could use some thing else for EVERY one of the items on the list, it doesn't change the fact that guns CAN be used, as tools, for many NON violent things...
#33 - You could use a foghorn/airhorn in half of those situations.  [+] (9 new replies) 03/25/2015 on Dewalt 0
User avatar #34 - scorpidea (03/25/2015) [-]
Hmmm... #1 nope, #2 nope, #3 oh god, #4 nope, #5 maybe at a small enough, remote airfield, otherwise not effective or really pisses the neighbors off, #6 nope (not even close), and #7 hell nope. so... maybe 1 of 7 ...not even close to half.... but I am sure you will now rationalize... so lets hear it...
#59 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
#3 starting pistol... i've seen airhorns, whistles and even a man say "go".
#5 frigthen birds and deer.. yes on all birds and some deers.
#6Even shouting can start an avalanche, maybe a airhorn can't reach the 150decibel, but few avalanches needs that.
The last one is purely military and the easiest way atm, you won't see freightships or fishingships do it. 3/6
Most flares are in tubes today.

Many of your points are based on sound which can be mimicked.
User avatar #61 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
#3 how sad your life must be (this is the one I gave you)
#5 not NEARLY as effective
#6 Ever seen the guns they use to intentionally trigger avalanches? The biggest fog horn in the world won't do that. They use friggin' Howitzers. And most major ski resorts and very large number of high elevation municipalities do this many times a year. So, yes, they CAN be triggered by accident with smaller means... but the "good" kind really need a gun. And they ARE done often.

Yeah and lets see you toss one of those roadside flares up high enough to be seen...

or are you talking about the ones in the long tubes where you pull the cord which ignites a propellant and launches it out the tube, up into the sky? Like a gun?... which uses an ignited propellant to push an object out a tube......

And yes freight ships do it to... fishing ships use harpoons...(also a gun)
#62 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
#3 wut
#5 you could get a foghorn as effective. Maybe not practical to move but neither is an airport.
#6 No, i believe most ski places use explosives if they really want to be sure. If you're in the wildernes and already carry a gun for protection, there's no need for a foghorn.

a tube that fires a flare is as much a gun as firework, and why would freight and fishing ships need to establish secure communication?
User avatar #63 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
#3 ....... O,o ....+1


#5, I am willing to meet you halfway on the airport... until the neighbors killed you... with the foghorn... +.5

#6,The explosives argument would be a step in the opposite direction from guns as opposed to air horns. You said "Fog horns / air horns" could be used in half of the situations, had you said "explosives" I would have more inclined to agree with you on 50%.

Secure communication AND measure distance. Freighter use it more for the later while moving alongside at sea. They use the same method as the Navy.

The tube, flare, fireworks, rocket argument is semantics, and we could go all night with it... doesn't sound fun to me... BUT... again a tube flare is STILL not a Foghorn / air horn.

Even if I drop the Naval use one as obscure I can still only offer you a 1.5 outta 6 (25%) still not half.....

#64 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
doubt neighbours of an airport would complain about the sound.

My point is that unless you want full avalanche control, shouting and airhorn is almost as good as a gun(not counting howitzer as a gun, it's artillery).

Don't think freighters carry m-14 unless they are near somalia or in malacca. They use rangefinders for that.

Not gunhating(like the shootingrange myself), but using guns where other tools are more practical is just redneck.
User avatar #65 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
You think people around airports won't complain about noise??? Do a Google search on Burlington international airport and the proposed F-35 stationing... but even if no one complained at all...this still doesn't change the fact that the horn is less effective...

Saying a howitzer is not a gun because it's artillery is unfathomably ridiculous... the howitzer, and all artillery (especially naval) , are the very DEFINITION of a gun, and is what I was referring to in my original response.

If I were a bunch of partying snowboards out for thrills, I suppose an air horn would work great for triggering an avalanche... but , again, as I originally mentioned, when dealing with people's safety, of course I would want FULL avalanche control.

Yes freighters do use rangefinders, as do Navy ships, and yes they ALSO use a metered line... and they launch it using the same METHOD as Navy ship ( perhaps with a different type of rifle). But still this is irrelevant.. Even if only a rangefinder was used... they are still not going to use an air horn or fog horn to replace it...

so if you had said that half of the things I had listed could be replaced with range finders, explosives, fireworks, AND foghorn / air horns... I would have agreed with you...

but you didn't... you said... "You could use a foghorn/airhorn in half of those situations."

well, I guess, ACTUALLY you could use a foghorn/airhorn in every one of those situations, just would work very well if at all...
#66 - ostemad (03/26/2015) [-]
you can't compare an airhorn to a f-35.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXBdjgQOFg

sry if my terms of gun doesn't fit yours, but i'm pretty sure quantumranger was talking about handheld guns, rifles and shotguns. Where a airhorn is just as effective. Full avalanche control needs systematic placement of explosives, if a howitzer were more effective they would use that. I believe the howitzer is used because it's the cheapest way. You can demolish a old building with a tank, but its main purpose is still war and not demolition/construction.

Never seen cargoships need a line between them for measure or communication, but deliver a reliable source and i believe you. You are bending my words, never said a airhorn could replace a rangefinder. "The last one is purely military and the easiest way atm, you won't see freightships or fishingships do it".

Competetive shooting is the only civilian place for a practical use of guns. So scaring birds and deer, starting pistol and avalanche if you compare it to a rifle 3. It's still about the sound which can be mimicked, except when you need to hit a target at a distance, like hunting where the purpose is to kill.
#68 - scorpidea (03/26/2015) [-]
I am not saying that some of these things can not be done by other means.... Just not an air horn.

And I am not comparing the sound levels of an f-35 to a foghorn... the jet is obviously louder.... I was using it as an example that people near airports will complain about noise... they WILL complain.

I can't find any strictly civilian examples of shot line use, all I can find are use with just military, or between the two... But this is semantics... I already conceded this one to you as obscure use....

And if you want to go back to his "original question" , my list shows how they can be used to not kill people... even if you could use some thing else for EVERY one of the items on the list, it doesn't change the fact that guns CAN be used, as tools, for many NON violent things...
#8 - 1973 oil crisis 03/23/2015 on Reasons to fight -2
#18 - You always walk on the right side, stupid plebs. 03/16/2015 on You checked with your hands 0

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1300
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - asianbear (06/25/2014) [-]
Go **** yourself
#2 to #1 - ostemad (06/25/2014) [-]
thx, i needed that.
 Friends (0)