5 ms·

This made me think of a court case a few years back. The defendant was arrested for shooting a potato cannon (PVC pipe, BBQ grill lighter and hairspray for prop

This made me think of a court case a few years back. The defendant was arrested for shooting a potato cannon (PVC pipe, BBQ grill lighter and hairspray for propellant). When the charges were read as using a dangerous weapon the defendant's lawyer replied that if a potato were a dangerous weapon then Ireland would be a superpower.

mikeash 13y ago
That's rather stupid. Generally, it is not the bullet that is considered to be the dangerous weapon, but the gun which fires it. If the lawyer thinks a high-speed potato can't kill somebody, I suggest he go give it a shot (pun intended) and see what happens.
- nwh 13y ago
  The bullet contains everything you need, not the gun. Lead and propellent, the gun is just a convenient tube and handle.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    You're thinking of the cartridge. The bullet is just the projectile, and does not include the propellant.
    - charonn0 13y ago
      You're all way over-thinking potatoes.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        I don't think so. Any projectile of decent mass will be deadly when accelerated to high speed. There's nothing that magically exempts potatoes from this just because they're edible. You can absolutely kill someone with a potato gun. The prosecution in question may be wrong for other reasons (e.g. fired safely and not with any intent to harm), but "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it.
        charonn0 13y ago
        "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it. I never made such an argument.
        mikeash 13y ago
        You didn't, but the lawyer referenced in the original comment I replied to said essentially that.
        jlgaddis 13y ago
        Oh geez, can we get any more off-topic? Stop being so damn pedantic and nitpicky, both of you. All of you.
        mikeash 13y ago
        Pedantic? Nitpicky? A comment was made about a lawyer making an argument which, in my opinion, is a bad argument. I pointed that out. I'm not being "pedantic" nor am I "nitpicking" when I point out that a potato cannon is, in fact, a deadly weapon and the lawyer's argument against it is stupid. Now, I agree that the comment, and therefore the whole thread that followed it, was not really on-topic. But I'm not seeing this whole "pedantic and nitpicky" thing.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    In addition to mikeash's correction, a round does not contain everything that you need. Without a chamber, a bullet is not going anywhere at a particularly dangerous speed. The casing is really not meant to contain the pressure of the burning propellant by itself and without a barrel then the expanding gases from the burning propellant would primarily dump their energy into the environment, not the bullet. In fact, without a chamber and barrel, the casing is actually more dangerous than the bullet, though still would not be deadly. This makes sense when you consider that the casing weights far less than the bullet. The "tube" is essential, not merely convenient.
csense 13y ago
Where was this? If this was in the USA, wouldn't a potato cannon be protected by the Second Amendment?

mikeash 13y ago

That's rather stupid. Generally, it is not the bullet that is considered to be the dangerous weapon, but the gun which fires it. If the lawyer thinks a high-speed potato can't kill somebody, I suggest he go give it a shot (pun intended) and see what happens.

nwh 13y ago
The bullet contains everything you need, not the gun. Lead and propellent, the gun is just a convenient tube and handle.
- mikeash 13y ago
  You're thinking of the cartridge. The bullet is just the projectile, and does not include the propellant.
  - charonn0 13y ago
    You're all way over-thinking potatoes.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I don't think so. Any projectile of decent mass will be deadly when accelerated to high speed. There's nothing that magically exempts potatoes from this just because they're edible. You can absolutely kill someone with a potato gun. The prosecution in question may be wrong for other reasons (e.g. fired safely and not with any intent to harm), but "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it.
      - charonn0 13y ago
        "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it. I never made such an argument.
        mikeash 13y ago
        You didn't, but the lawyer referenced in the original comment I replied to said essentially that.
        jlgaddis 13y ago
        Oh geez, can we get any more off-topic? Stop being so damn pedantic and nitpicky, both of you. All of you.
        mikeash 13y ago
        Pedantic? Nitpicky? A comment was made about a lawyer making an argument which, in my opinion, is a bad argument. I pointed that out. I'm not being "pedantic" nor am I "nitpicking" when I point out that a potato cannon is, in fact, a deadly weapon and the lawyer's argument against it is stupid. Now, I agree that the comment, and therefore the whole thread that followed it, was not really on-topic. But I'm not seeing this whole "pedantic and nitpicky" thing.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  In addition to mikeash's correction, a round does not contain everything that you need. Without a chamber, a bullet is not going anywhere at a particularly dangerous speed. The casing is really not meant to contain the pressure of the burning propellant by itself and without a barrel then the expanding gases from the burning propellant would primarily dump their energy into the environment, not the bullet. In fact, without a chamber and barrel, the casing is actually more dangerous than the bullet, though still would not be deadly. This makes sense when you consider that the casing weights far less than the bullet. The "tube" is essential, not merely convenient.

csense 13y ago

Where was this? If this was in the USA, wouldn't a potato cannon be protected by the Second Amendment?