The reasons behind the rules - Revision history

Ragnarok at 00:44, 24 March 2010

2010-03-24T00:44:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:44, 23 March 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Either way, the line "Why is it not allowed", or something similar tends to come up if the original poster gets back before the moderators lock the topic.		Either way, the line "Why is it not allowed", or something similar tends to come up if the original poster gets back before the moderators lock the topic.

	This page ~~is here to explain~~ why these rules are here.		This page gives some of the reasons why these rules are here.

	==Rule 2==		==Rule 2==
Line 17:		Line 17:

	The reason we don't allow it is that spudguns in general are neither accurate enough to ensure a hit in a "kill-zone", nor powerful enough to ensure a clean kill if they don't. ''(There are exceptions. A few cannons on this forum would be up to the task with the right projectile, but those cannons are the exception, not the rule. Nor will I be identifying the cannons up to the task)'' <br>		The reason we don't allow it is that spudguns in general are neither accurate enough to ensure a hit in a "kill-zone", nor powerful enough to ensure a clean kill if they don't. ''(There are exceptions. A few cannons on this forum would be up to the task with the right projectile, but those cannons are the exception, not the rule. Nor will I be identifying the cannons up to the task)'' <br>
	This means that there is a very real likelihood of you having an injured ~~target~~, if you hit it at all.		This means that there is a very real likelihood of you having a target you have merely injured, if you hit it at all.

	Given that most spudguns are not set up for a quick repeat shot, and that has no more guarantee of finishing it cleanly that the last one did, that means that it's either left in pain, or you have to find another method to end ~~it's~~ pain.		Given that most spudguns are not set up for a quick repeat shot, and that has no more guarantee of finishing it cleanly that the last one did, that means that it's either left in pain, or you have to find another method to end its pain.
	Most of you would probably baulk at going over to your target - which is in very real agony, and going to die a slow agonising death - and cleanly breaking ~~it's~~ neck to end ~~it's~~ misery. This would even be inadvisable, as wounded ~~animals~~ can ~~become~~ very vicious, and ~~will likely~~ attack you.		Most of you would probably baulk at going over to your target - which is in very real agony, and going to die a slow agonising death - and cleanly breaking its neck to end its misery. This would even be inadvisable, as a wounded animal can be very vicious and might well attack you.

	Someone might justify leaving an animal in pain in so many ways. I can assure you, no reason is acceptable. This is why we do not allow the discussion of shooting of animals on this forum. <br>		Someone might justify leaving an animal in pain in so many ways. I can assure you, no reason is acceptable. This is why we do not allow the discussion of shooting of animals on this forum. <br>
	We can't stop you doing it outside our knowledge if you're ~~the kind of sick bastard~~ that doesn't care a jot for the animals, but we don't want to hear about it on this forum.		We can't stop you doing it outside our knowledge if you're a psychopathic type that doesn't care a jot for the animals, but we don't want to hear about it on this forum.

	Shooting at people is common sense. Would you take a loaded pistol, and fire it at your friend? I sincerely hope not. <br>		Shooting at people is common sense. Would you take a loaded pistol, and fire it at your friend? I sincerely hope not. <br>

Ragnarok: /* Rule 3 */

2009-01-20T00:47:21Z

Rule 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 19 January 2009
Line 31:		Line 31:
	This states: ''Discussion of solid propellants, explosive devices or incendiary projectiles fired specifically from a spud cannon is prohibited, and may result in a permanent banning of your account.''		This states: ''Discussion of solid propellants, explosive devices or incendiary projectiles fired specifically from a spud cannon is prohibited, and may result in a permanent banning of your account.''

	Firstly, this is because it's highly dangerous. [http://www.ksfy.com/news/local/9523117.html Take Ryan Meerdink's example.] He used solid propellant in a PVC cannon. He ended up '''very''' dead.<br>		Firstly, this is because it's highly dangerous. [http://www.ksfy.com/news/local/9523117.html Take Ryan Meerdink's example.] He used solid propellant in a PVC cannon (although the article doesn't make this clear, this fact later became evident). He ended up '''very''' dead.<br>
	You might not be so stupid. You might do it in a more solidly built metal cannon. That still offers no guarantee you haven't made a potentially fatal mistake.<br>		You might not be so stupid. You might do it in a more solidly built metal cannon. That still offers no guarantee you haven't made a potentially fatal mistake.<br>
	Also, people are sometimes idiots. Someone may come along, and make a connection if they see PVC cannons and solid propellants mentioned on the same site, then make the same mistake as Ryan.		Also, people are sometimes idiots. Someone may come along, and make a connection if they see PVC cannons and solid propellants mentioned on the same site, then make the same mistake as Ryan.

Ragnarok: /* Rule 2 */

2008-12-16T23:28:19Z

Rule 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:28, 16 December 2008
Line 19:		Line 19:
	This means that there is a very real likelihood of you having an injured target, if you hit it at all.		This means that there is a very real likelihood of you having an injured target, if you hit it at all.

	Given that most spudguns are not set up for a quick repeat shot, and that has no more guarantee of finishing it cleanly that the last one did.		Given that most spudguns are not set up for a quick repeat shot, and that has no more guarantee of finishing it cleanly that the last one did, that means that it's either left in pain, or you have to find another method to end it's pain.
	Most of you would probably baulk at going over to your target - which is in very real ~~pain~~, and going to die a slow agonising death - and cleanly breaking it's neck to end it's misery. This would even be inadvisable, as wounded animals can become very vicious, and will likely attack you.		Most of you would probably baulk at going over to your target - which is in very real agony, and going to die a slow agonising death - and cleanly breaking it's neck to end it's misery. This would even be inadvisable, as wounded animals can become very vicious, and will likely attack you.

	Someone might justify leaving an animal in pain in so many ways. I can assure you, no reason is acceptable. This is why we do not allow the discussion of shooting of animals on this forum. <br>		Someone might justify leaving an animal in pain in so many ways. I can assure you, no reason is acceptable. This is why we do not allow the discussion of shooting of animals on this forum. <br>

Ragnarok: New page: Every now and again, we get a newbie who comes through, doesn't read the rules on sign up, then posts a topic that's against them.
More rarely, they have read the rules, but don't agre...

2008-12-16T22:58:50Z

New page: Every now and again, we get a newbie who comes through, doesn't read the rules on sign up, then posts a topic that's against them. More rarely, they have read the rules, but don't agre...

New page

Every now and again, we get a newbie who comes through, doesn't read the rules on sign up, then posts a topic that's against them. 
More rarely, they have read the rules, but don't agree with them.

Most commonly, the problem is with either Rule #2, or Rule #3.
Either way, the line "Why is it not allowed", or something similar tends to come up if the original poster gets back before the moderators lock the topic.

This page is here to explain why these rules are here.

==Rule 2==
Rule 2 specifies: ''Discussion of shooting anything at any person and/or animal is prohibited, and may result in a permanent banning of your account.''

When we see this rule broken, it often refers to the shooting of animals, rather than people, so I'll deal with that first. 
This may sound a little harsh. The arguments against it are usually like:
* People hunt everyday, why is discussion of shooting animals not allowed? It's no worse.
* Hey, I've got an (insert calibre here) rifle, and I go hunting every weekend, what's your problem?
* I've got squirrels (or other critters) I need to deal with and no other method.

The reason we don't allow it is that spudguns in general are neither accurate enough to ensure a hit in a "kill-zone", nor powerful enough to ensure a clean kill if they don't. ''(There are exceptions. A few cannons on this forum would be up to the task with the right projectile, but those cannons are the exception, not the rule. Nor will I be identifying the cannons up to the task)'' 
This means that there is a very real likelihood of you having an injured target, if you hit it at all.

Given that most spudguns are not set up for a quick repeat shot, and that has no more guarantee of finishing it cleanly that the last one did.
Most of you would probably baulk at going over to your target - which is in very real pain, and going to die a slow agonising death - and cleanly breaking it's neck to end it's misery. This would even be inadvisable, as wounded animals can become very vicious, and will likely attack you.

Someone might justify leaving an animal in pain in so many ways. I can assure you, no reason is acceptable. This is why we do not allow the discussion of shooting of animals on this forum. 
We can't stop you doing it outside our knowledge if you're the kind of sick bastard that doesn't care a jot for the animals, but we don't want to hear about it on this forum.

Shooting at people is common sense. Would you take a loaded pistol, and fire it at your friend? I sincerely hope not. 
Treat spudguns as if they were as dangerous as any powder burning firearm. I know I just told you that they weren't good enough to ensure a clean hunting kill, but the inverse is also true. They're not bad enough that you can't guarantee that it won't kill or severely injure your target, especially if it hits in ''just'' the wrong place.

==Rule 3==
This states: ''Discussion of solid propellants, explosive devices or incendiary projectiles fired specifically from a spud cannon is prohibited, and may result in a permanent banning of your account.''

Firstly, this is because it's highly dangerous. [http://www.ksfy.com/news/local/9523117.html Take Ryan Meerdink's example.] He used solid propellant in a PVC cannon. He ended up '''very''' dead. 
You might not be so stupid. You might do it in a more solidly built metal cannon. That still offers no guarantee you haven't made a potentially fatal mistake. 
Also, people are sometimes idiots. Someone may come along, and make a connection if they see PVC cannons and solid propellants mentioned on the same site, then make the same mistake as Ryan.

Secondly, it's because spudguns are already on shaky legal ground in many countries, and they get away with existing only because they DON'T use solid propellants or fire explosive/incendiary projectiles. Putting solid propellants on a spudgun site may destroy the legal loopholes that spudguns currently enjoy.

Again, we can't stop you if you insist on doing it without telling us. It's still highly irresponsible to do so though.

----

While I'm here, solid propellants only applies to fuels that do not require a gaseous oxidiser (Air, Oxygen or Nitrous oxide are all possible gaseous oxidisers). For that reason, if a cannon uses flour/sugar/other fine powders that have to be suspended in the air to burn, they do not violate the rule.

The reasons behind the rules - Revision history

Ragnarok at 00:44, 24 March 2010

Ragnarok: /* Rule 3 */

Ragnarok: /* Rule 2 */

Ragnarok: New page: Every now and again, we get a newbie who comes through, doesn't read the rules on sign up, then posts a topic that's against them. More rarely, they have read the rules, but don't agre...

Ragnarok: New page: Every now and again, we get a newbie who comes through, doesn't read the rules on sign up, then posts a topic that's against them.
More rarely, they have read the rules, but don't agre...