|
CommieGIR posted:Match pistols are still lethal weapons. Nice goal post shift. This is their tactic. It's all they can do is spout logical fallacy after logical fallacy. It's exhausting and infuriating. Dead Reckoning posted:So this idea of Designer's Original Intent is super important to him, and he's never going to let it go. Except the designer's original intent and the current intent are exactly the loving same. I can beat someone to death with a newspaper if I try really hard, but it's inefficient and I can't murder 10 or 20 people instantaneously like I could with a handheld instant death machine. LeeMajors fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Oct 2, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
BarkingSquirrel posted:I calls it how I sees it. You don't wanna be called a retard? Don't be a retard. Also that wasn't a citation at all. I'm starting to think you don't have the slightest clue what you're spouting off about. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3738648&userid=213367
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
You know, for all the gun pedantry going on in this thread, nobody pointed out the stupidity of equating sling-thrown rocks with bullets. f=mv^2. Slings cap out at 60m/s if you're an expert. 30m/s for a novice - or some random kid with a sling made out of a bandana. Bullets go as "slow" as 300m/s for subsonic rounds like the .22lr we're talking about. That's a factor of 25-100 disparity here. That has compounding problems - slinging a larger rock takes a lot more effort than a tiny one, and the impact force is spread over a much larger area than a compact bullet. Not to mention having to carry 25-100 times as much weight around, which adds up quickly if you want to do more than toss one rock and leave. Yes, you can kill an unarmored person with a sling. You're not going to kill a soldier in proper gear with one - especially not inside a vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
To fill out the K.E. equations there, imagine the sling is hurling a 1" lead ball at 60ms-1, that's 97g for a total kinetic energy of ~175J (E = ½m.v2). That's actually more than an subsonic .22LR at ~150J, but far less than most other rounds. For a novice throwing a similar ball at only 30ms-1 though, the KE drops way down to under 45J, less than a third. I'm not sure that's going to convince the 'design intent only' crowd though either way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm not sure that's going to convince the 'design intent only' crowd though either way. To take this back to the topic at hand: Do you honestly believe .22LR is a valid non-lethal weapon? Be serious now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Of course not.CommieGIR posted:Match pistols are still lethal weapons. Nice goal post shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Of course not. It shoots a .22LR cartridge. Its a lethal firearm. Its designed as a weapon, regardless of the purpose its used for. By your very argument, you are indirectly contradicting yourself. You cannot say 'Well, a 22LR is not a nonlethal round' and then in the same sentence say 'Well, except when fired from something I feel is not a firearm'
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:To fill out the K.E. equations there, imagine the sling is hurling a 1" lead ball at 60ms-1, that's 97g for a total kinetic energy of ~175J (E = ½m.v2). That's actually more than an subsonic .22LR at ~150J, but far less than most other rounds. Lead? Where the gently caress are they getting lead from? Picking it out of the bodies of their murdered friends and melting it down with a fire made from their bulldozed homes? Oh. (A smooth 2" rock has about the same mass, if I did my math right) Don't overlook the second half, too - we're not just asking how much energy it transfers to another object, we're talking about the damage it can do. Even at the same energy level, getting hit with a small, fast bullet can do a lot more damage than a slow large object, simply because it can penetrate the skin and do internal damage. Harik fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
 Would a sling be physical force or other weapon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It shoots a .22LR cartridge. Its a lethal firearm. Its designed as a weapon, regardless of the purpose its used for. I sure as gently caress wouldn't call knives a non-lethal way of controlling people, but you seem to think they aren't weapons in the way guns are. So again, what is your definition of a weapon? All you're willing to say is that it definitely includes guns. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So again, what is your definition of a weapon? All you're willing to say is that it definitely includes guns. For the purposes of this thread, ANYTHING shooting .22LR that can be aimed at a person is a weapon. Quit trying to shift the goal posts around, if a Match Pistol was shot at a person, it would work just as well as a handgun designed to do the same thing, since they are both effectively the same thing, just the 'intended' purpose is different. If you killed someone with a match pistol or even assaulted them with one, it would be presented at your trail as 'The weapon' not 'the item that was not designed as a weapon that just so happened to be used as one', and its incredibly disingenuous of you to try to end run around it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:For the purposes of this thread, ANYTHING shooting .22LR that can be aimed at a person is a weapon. So is it only a weapon when used against people, then? Disregarding the fact the entire argument has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Here's a suggestion, because I don't feel the discussion here is getting anywhere: to me the real question here is whether or not .22LRs make acceptable crowd control weapons. I would argue that they do not, because the likelihood of causing irreversible bodily harm to unarmed protestors who are not posing an immediate threat is too high, especially with the misleading designation as nonlethal (as we've seen in the past with rubber-coated steel bullets) and because if the aim is to reduce deaths, there are plenty of other weapons more suited to the task. I mean, we're talking about a military force which repeatedly abuses teargas RPG's to shoot directly at people, it doesn't need more excuses to be able to use deadly force and pretend to be humane about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Here's a suggestion, because I don't feel the discussion here is getting anywhere: to me the real question here is whether or not .22LRs make acceptable crowd control weapons. I would argue that they do not, because the likelihood of causing irreversible bodily harm to unarmed protestors who are not posing an immediate threat is too high, especially with the misleading designation as nonlethal (as we've seen in the past with rubber-coated steel bullets) and because if the aim is to reduce deaths, there are plenty of other weapons more suited to the task. I mean, we're talking about a military force which repeatedly abuses teargas RPG's to shoot directly at people, it doesn't need more excuses to be able to use deadly force and pretend to be humane about it. We're talking about a force that strapped teenagers and kids to their vehicles to use them as human shields. So, yeah, using .22LR as a 'non-lethal crowd control weapon' is well within the realms of possibility for them, and they've done it before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We're talking about a force that strapped teenagers and kids to their vehicles to use them as human shields. So, yeah, using .22LR as a 'non-lethal crowd control weapon' is well within the realms of possibility for them, and they've done it before. Oh, I am sure they'll be doing it, the question is whether we're going to accept that narrative. I don't think the intricacies of comparison between the .22LR and the .45 Special are really germane, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Oh, I am sure they'll be doing it, the question is whether we're going to accept that narrative. I don't think the intricacies of comparison between the .22LR and the .45 Special are really germane, though. Pretty much. In fact the .22LR was used multiple times as a choice assassination round due to its ability to be almost totally silenced for close range assassinations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:To fill out the K.E. equations there, imagine the sling is hurling a 1" lead ball at 60ms-1, that's 97g for a total kinetic energy of ~175J (E = ½m.v2). That's actually more than an subsonic .22LR at ~150J, but far less than most other rounds. 120 kg of play-dough rolling down a hill at 3 m/s has kinetic energy of 0.5*120*9 = 540J. which is just over the muzzle energy of 0.45 ACP, and is therefore roughly as hazardous. A 14" knife weighing 0.3kg moving into a person at 1 m/s has kinetic energy of 0.5*0.3*1 = 0.15J and is therefore clearly harmless. People are soft bags of meat filled with blood and get killed when you poke holes in them, which has very little to do with kinetic energy. Whether or not a weapon is potentially lethal is transparently obvious to anyone who isn't a sperglord moron and unless you spend as much time huffing farts as the folks in IDF, calling .22LR "non-lethal" is ridiculous beyond the point of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Here's a suggestion, because I don't feel the discussion here is getting anywhere: to me the real question here is whether or not .22LRs make acceptable crowd control weapons. They do not. Someone trying to leg you with a .22LR rifle is a valid target for your AK47. A European police officer trying to leg you with their pistol because you're running away and they're too lazy to give chase is likewise a valid target for lethal force in self-defense. Guns are not compliance devices, whether or not their caliber is ideal for ending humans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:32
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
CommieGIR posted:To take this back to the topic at hand: Do you honestly believe .22LR is a valid non-lethal weapon? CommieGIR posted:Pretty much. In fact the .22LR was used multiple times as a choice assassination round due to its ability to be almost totally silenced for close range assassinations. [Citation Needed] Also, sub-sonic rounds in general silence very well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Has anyone pointed out that the 22lr bullet used in the Reagan assassination attempt was some kind of sickballs sweetass exploding round that hit Ronnie after ricocheting off the limo's bullet proof plate glass windows? Had primers in the tip or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
The Palestinian soldiers hunker down behind their shields, obsidian tipped spears at the ready. The phalanx is completed. They move forward in formation, they've trained for this. The perfect killing machine. "Ram forwaaard!" they cry into their iphone, the perfect propaganda Vine, as they begin the siege of Jerusalem
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:Has anyone pointed out that the 22lr bullet used in the Reagan assassination attempt was some kind of sickballs sweetass exploding round that hit Ronnie after ricocheting off the limo's bullet proof plate glass windows? Had primers in the tip or something. Devastator rounds, for use by air marshals. They're meant to explode on impact, so as not to pierce the skin of an aircraft. Only some of the bullets used in the assassination attempt actually exploded, if I recall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
getting hit in the leg by a 22lr rifle would really, really suck but you'd have to like be living in the third world or something for it to kill you luckily palestinians enjoy a first world living experience and top notch health care
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:getting hit in the leg by a 22lr rifle would really, really suck but you'd have to like be living in the third world or something for it to kill you luckily palestinians enjoy a first world living experience and top notch health care Unless it gets you in the femoral artery and you're dead 5 minutes later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Back in the 60s the Utah Department of Corrections started using the American-180, a .22lr submachine gun with a 165-275 round pan magazine. The idea supposedly being that if there was a riot and the prisoners captured the guns, they wouldn't be able to penetrate the body armor worn by prison guards, but the guards would have plenty of ammo to wipe out any rioters. It turned out to be pretty pointless because it could actually penetrate the body armor, and apparently most of the guns ended up being surplussed and bought by private collectors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rfJy4exPFE
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Morbus posted:120 kg of play-dough rolling down a hill at 3 m/s has kinetic energy of 0.5*120*9 = 540J. which is just over the muzzle energy of 0.45 ACP, and is therefore roughly as hazardous. I'm not sure what you think would happen if you started swinging huge weights into people or stabbing them for riot control, but that probably wouldn't be non-lethal either, and it's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
Urzza posted:No one believes that. Part of me thinks the IDF doesn't even really believe it. To anyone who knows anything about firearms, the idea would be laughable, were it not so dangerous. I provided citation already: quote:The Israeli military used a suppressed .22 LR rifle in the 1990s for riot control and to "eliminate disturbing dogs prior to operations", though it is now used less often as it has been shown to be more lethal than previously suspected.[15] Some other examples include the use of suppressed High Standard HDM pistols by the American OSS, which was the predecessor organization of the CIA.[12] Francis Gary Powers was issued a suppressed High Standard for the flight in which he was shot down. Suppressed Ruger MK II pistols were used by the US Navy SEALs in the 1990s.[16] http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/israeli_sniper.htm CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Has anyone here (other than the IDF sources linked) called .22LR non-lethal? The TFR contingent on here has frequently argued that because 22LR is not the most lethal and efficient caliber for killing people, it is somehow supposed to not be considered for-the-purpose-of-killing. Even in this very thread..... Dead Reckoning posted:No, it hasn't, you simply refuse to understand the point being made. 22lr is a sub-optimal caliber for an anti-personnel weapon. In general, most guns designed as anti-personnel weapons will be chambered in larger, center fire calibers. The point is that target shooting is practice killing. Hunting is killing. Murder is killing. Guns are designed for killing, or practicing killing. Arguing otherwise is being pedantic to the point of intellectually dishonesty. "Well maybe I use this gun that was designed for killing exclusively as a can opener. Your move, libtard.  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:The TFR contingent on here has frequently argued that because 22LR is not the most lethal and efficient caliber for killing people, it is somehow supposed to not be considered for-the-purpose-of-killing. Target shooting is not practicing killing. It is practicing making little holes in paper targets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I may have misunderstood you before. I think I know what you're getting at. No, you've still misunderstood. My point is that these tools still tend to kill people regardless of whether the wielder intended to. Even if you're just dishing out a a semi-random beating for intimidation value, brownshirt-style, you've still got a fair chance of accidentally killing someone. Hell, US cops semi-regularly kill people accidentally just by holding them down. Similarly, even rubber bullets and plastic bullets occasionally cause fatalities, blindings, and other permanent and crippling injuries; compared to that, it's pointless to argue the relative lethality of real live bullets that put real holes in living things. If even genuinely "less-lethal" bullets designed for the express purpose of not killing people still kill people sometimes, there's no point in nitpicking wound channels or tumble patterns or whatever in real put-holes-in-people bullets - they're still going to kill or severely injure people far more often than contemporary riot-control tools. What I'm saying is that the moment you've committed to suppressing civilian protestors by inflicting physical trauma to their bodies, you've committed to killing at least a few people, permanently injuring at least three times that many, and sending probably around half the people you assault to the hospital. The method doesn't really matter that much, it just adjusts those ratios a bit (IIRC, those numbers were from an old rubber bullets study). And if you're rejecting the numerous options out there that were specifically designed to be less dangerous to civilians, then that's just plain negligent, you can't even fall back on "oops what a tragic accident" like modern riot control does when a tear gas canister hits a kid in the skull or a passerby gets a rubber bullet ricochet to the eye. And even if you get lucky enough to avoid killing people for a while, you're still using tactics closely associated with brutality, oppression, and fascism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:The point is that target shooting is practice killing. Hunting is killing. Murder is killing. Guns are designed for killing, or practicing killing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this honestly your point? I suspect it's not, I suspect you are arguing "Hunting is killing, and therefore we should do something". Calling target shooting practice killing sounds to me like people who call Doom a murder simulator. I mean obviously certain people like the military engage in target shooting to practice killing, but there's also people who practice target shooting as an end to itself, but all of that is totally irrelevant. Why should I care and why do you care? I don't see any logical conclusion from "Guns are designed for killing" other than "Wow, guns appear to be really bad at what they are designed for" I'm arguing that guns were designed for and exist only for the purpose of killing. Target shooting is to increase proficiency with your death toy. Who cares whether a certain round is more or less efficient at killing? Who says you wouldn't turn your 'target shootin' gun' on someone in anger? .22LR firearms kill people every day. It's cheap, disposable and easily accessible. The ammunition is incredibly cheap. Its effectiveness in comparison to other calibers is absolutely irrelevant. When your hobby objectively makes society worse for the wear, you should probably re-evaluate said hobby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I'm arguing that guns were designed for and exist only for the purpose of killing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:So it looks like I was right. You don't appear to actually care whether guns were designed for killing, you appear to actually care about society being worse off. Note: assuming you're right about society being worse off, it would be worse off regardless of the design intent of gun manufacturers. Given that piece of information, why even bother to have the discussion about design intent? It at best offers the opportunity for a pedantic derail of something totally disconnected from what you actually care about. It honestly looks like a false flag operation to me. Because design intent matters when people revert to the pedantic argument of 'well they would kill people with x,' at which point you point out that, no, your boston stapler was not designed to kill anyone quickly or efficiently and pulling off a mass murder with a swiss army knife, while possible against a band of invalids, is probably nearly impossible. Yes, guns are technically inanimate objects and would sit helpless on the floor or counter if no humans were around--unfortunately, they are possessed by irrational actors and allow immediate deadly force to be exacted on a large scale. They are a public safety nuisance by design, and should be regulated into obscurity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Because design intent matters when people revert to the pedantic argument of 'well they would kill people with x,' at which point you point out that, no, your boston stapler was not designed to kill anyone quickly or efficiently and pulling off a mass murder with a swiss army knife, while possible against a band of invalids, is probably nearly impossible. edit: Perhaps to make this more clear, someone with a design intent can fail to build a device that actually fulfills their intention, you should be talking about the actual capabilities, not what designers intended the capabilities to be. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:Design intent is wholly irrelevant to this. The fact is that staplers are less capable of killing people than guns and that's true without any regard to what was in the head of the person designing the stapler or gun. Someone could design a stapler with the explicit intent that it is as lethal as possible and it still wouldn't be more lethal than a gun. It's not though. When something is designed explicitly to directly end lives, that point becomes relevant when you're discussing whether guns belong in a modern, purportedly civilized society. Guns were developed to make killing efficient and instantaneous--a literal point and shoot death machine. They are wildly successful and still exist to that end today. They don't really exist for any other practical purpose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:It's not though. When something is designed explicitly to directly end lives, that point becomes relevant when you're discussing whether guns belong in a modern, purportedly civilized society. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:It's not though. When something is designed explicitly to directly end lives, that point becomes relevant when you're discussing whether guns belong in a modern, purportedly civilized society. You constantly assert this is self-evident, but very few people seem to agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:They don't really exist for any other practical purpose. Entertainment is a practical purpose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
twodot posted:You just aren't using words correctly. If you want to have a conversation about what tools are most efficient for a mass murder, it is fundamentally insane to first ask "What did the designer of the tool imagine it would be used for?" (edit: Doing this with TNT for example leads to bad results). The only thing that matters is the actual capabilities of the tool. This is in fact convenient for you, because all guns do actually possess the capabilities you want to claim their designers intended. What possible benefit do you have by claiming something arguable (literally every gun designer ever explicitly built their guns to end lives) versus something not even in dispute (literally every functioning gun is capable of ending lives)?  No, you are misunderstanding. The design intent is in fact relevant. We aren't discussing a nuclear bomb being used to divert an asteroid. Or a kitchen knife being used in a murder. We are discussing a weapon that has explicitly been designed as a super efficient killing machine, and has succeeded (wildly) in that capacity. The designers intent matters because it only magnifies the firearms sole purpose as an instant death machine. SedanChair posted:You constantly assert this is self-evident, but very few people seem to agree with you. It is self-evident, no matter how many pedantic well-actuallies you trot out here. crabcakes66 posted:Entertainment is a practical purpose. When your entertainment is a menace to society, no it is not. Blowing poo poo up with nuclear weapons is probably spectacularly fun, but its not allowed because it's goddamned dangerous. LeeMajors fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 20:28
|
|