Blended metal ammo

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Laws like that don't work on psychopaths. So, before people get t own a weapon, they are checked to see if they are obviously a psychopath. If not, they get a weapon. If so, they don't. Little simplified, but thats the process.

Compare this with the US system: giving away weapons in a bank. I like ours better.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Compare this with the US system: giving away weapons in a bank.  I like ours better.

Umm, you do know that Moore went through the appropriate background checks two months before filming "the bank scene"?

Plus a robber would never walk into a bank, present photo ID, then open an account with a few thousand dollars. And he would also have to have no major crimes on his record .

[Gordy 0]

Just imagine this POS Washington sniper using this ammo on people. He'd get gas chamber on the spot.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]By the way, why would you outlaw effective weapons and ammunition? Why ban napalm, hollowpoints etc? They do their job well is there something wrong with that?

If you were burned to death maybe you would think that they should be banned.

Do you think every country should start using napalm and nervgas?

[Milkman 1]

Quote[/b] ]By the way, why would you outlaw effective weapons and ammunition? Why ban napalm, hollowpoints etc? They do their job well is there something wrong with that?

If you were burned to death maybe you would think that they should be banned.

Do you think every country should start using napalm and nervgas?

Didn't say anything about nervegas. Napalm isnt the only thing that can "burn you to death." So why must it be the only one banned? I say either don't ban them or ban them all.

[blackdog~ 0]

Woops instead of Europe I should have said England or whatever that country with the austin-powers flag is :P

(just kidding about the austinpowers thing)

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]By the way, why would you outlaw effective weapons and ammunition? Why ban napalm, hollowpoints etc? They do their job well is there something wrong with that?

If you were burned to death maybe you would think that they should be banned.

Do you think every country should start using napalm and nervgas?

Didn't say anything about nervegas. Napalm isnt the only thing that can "burn you to death." So why must it be the only one banned? I say either don't ban them or ban them all.

It ISNT the only one banned, the things 'not supposed to be used' are anything which causes effects like that... don't take what America uses on Iraqi civilians (alright, not intentionally used on civilians) to be standard, not every country uses napalm-like ammunition.

@Blackdog:

If you mean The UK (hard to tell, since you don't seem to know yourself) - wrong also. Firearms are not banned.

[Brutal_Impact 0]

Such rounds are illegal to use in combat for most countries. (although the US never bothered signing that treaty afaik) Hollowpoint, explosive rounds, whatever; if they create injuries like that, they are illegal.

US stopped using them in Vietnam

[Brutal_Impact 0]

I can even argue that those ammuniction are more humane than regular.

Regular goes through u but this will blow u to pieces. In which case the death may occur instantly? The same with hunting. U will use a shotgun to kill a duck.  

One regular bullet won't necessarily kill you.

Exactl,

I bet most wounds are to the arms and legs, if they used this, it would dismember your arm. Normal bullet would make you a casualty and be able to survive.

BTW, most people who get shot survive the wounds.

[Pathy 0]

Agree with that.

One blended metal round wont necessarily kill you....and instead of just, say, a bullet in the flesh of the leg, you end up with NO leg.....thats why its illegal and regular isnt......

[Badgerboy 0]

Quite, consider how many people are shot in a combat situation, and then survive afterwards. Perhaps they can't recover fast enough to partake in combat again, but stand a good chance of surviving. Thats why your not allowed to blow them into little chunks.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Such rounds are illegal to use in combat for most countries. (although the US never bothered signing that treaty afaik) Hollowpoint, explosive rounds, whatever; if they create injuries like that, they are illegal.

US stopped using them in Vietnam

Doesn't alter the fact that they didn't bother signing the treaty, does it? Or that some US forces DO use hollowpoints on occasion.

[Gollum1 0]

Or that some US forces DO use hollowpoints on occasion.

Source?

[mr burns 132]

Quote[/b] ]By the way, why would you outlaw effective weapons and ammunition? Why ban napalm, hollowpoints etc? They do their job well is there something wrong with that?

If you were burned to death maybe you would think that they should be banned.

Do you think every country should start using napalm and nervgas?

Didn't say anything about nervegas. Napalm isnt the only thing that can "burn you to death." So why must it be the only one banned? I say either don't ban them or ban them all.

have to agree with milkman, either you outlaw all cruel weapons or you use ´em all to improve combat effectivness.

a battlefield always will be a shitty place to be, no matter if  standart 7,62mm or some gelatine rounds are flying through the air.

Quote[/b] ]One blended metal round wont necessarily kill you....and instead of just, say, a bullet in the flesh of the leg, you end up with NO leg.....thats why its illegal and regular isnt......

think ap mines are the bigger evil (mines at all, been told that with only a little "mc gyver´ing" you can set anti tank mines to explode on impact with 80kg instead of 1ton or whatever, which makes it an ap mine again- and i believe this is technique is widely used).

also, on a tv report about the seals a guy (their masterchief or sumfin) was interviewed and he praised the psychological effect for bystanders when a .50 cal round rips someone into  pieces  

if really all cruelty would be banned from wars we´d soon have american gladiators making the decision

edit:

Or that some US forces DO use hollowpoints on occasion.

Source?

ravenshield

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

23 September 1985 opinion issued by the Judge Advocate General, authored by W. Hays Parks2, Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch, for the signature of Major Hugh R. Overholt, which stated:

"...expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."

".......Delta Force soldiers have armed themselves with hollow-point bullets and exploding ammunition,......."

Full article Article

The 7.62 M852 round used by snipers is also a hollowpoint round, technically at least.

SF in Iraq and Afghanistan commonly use MK262 or Mk262mod1 ammunition in their personal weapons - those being Jacketed hollowpoint rounds.

[Gollum1 0]

SF in Iraq and Afghanistan commonly use MK262 or Mk262mod1 ammunition in their personal weapons - those being Jacketed hollowpoint rounds.

Makes perfect sense even if it is illegal...how many enemies with body armor are they going to encounter?

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]One blended metal round wont necessarily kill you....and instead of just, say, a bullet in the flesh of the leg, you end up with NO leg.....thats why its illegal and regular isnt......

think ap mines are the bigger evil (mines at all, been told that with only a little "mc gyver´ing" you can set anti tank mines to explode on impact with 80kg instead of 1ton or whatever, which makes it an ap mine again- and i believe this is technique is widely used).

I'm no arms expert but arent AP mines (with the possible exception of Claymores) also illegal? Can they get round it just by changing the weight required? Surely if you are making a mine specifically to target humans, that makes it illegal all the same........I wonder if that makes it illegal to make booby traps with grenades?

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]One blended metal round wont necessarily kill you....and instead of just, say, a bullet in the flesh of the leg, you end up with NO leg.....thats why its illegal and regular isnt......

think ap mines are the bigger evil (mines at all, been told that with only a little "mc gyver´ing" you can set anti tank mines to explode on impact with 80kg instead of 1ton or whatever, which makes it an ap mine again- and i believe this is technique is widely used).

I'm no arms expert but arent AP mines (with the possible exception of Claymores) also illegal? Can they get round it just by changing the weight required? Surely if you are making a mine specifically to target humans, that makes it illegal all the same........I wonder if that makes it illegal to make booby traps with grenades?

Claymores and grenade booby traps are considerably less hazardous to civilians after the war and easier to disarm. The ottawa treaty forbids using mines against personnel.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

SF in Iraq and Afghanistan commonly use MK262 or Mk262mod1 ammunition in their personal weapons - those being Jacketed hollowpoint rounds.

Makes perfect sense even if it is illegal...how many enemies with body armor are they going to encounter?

1)Hollowpoint is LESS effective against body armour, not more

2) I don't give a shit how effective it is or isn't, it should be illegal, and would be if the US were half as civilised as they claim to be.

[Mister Frag 0]

23 September 1985 opinion issued by the Judge Advocate General, authored by W. Hays Parks2, Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch, for the signature of Major Hugh R. Overholt, which stated:

   "...expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."

".......Delta Force soldiers have armed themselves with hollow-point bullets and exploding ammunition,......."

Full article Article

The 7.62 M852 round used by snipers is also a hollowpoint round, technically at least.

SF in Iraq and Afghanistan commonly use MK262 or Mk262mod1 ammunition in their personal weapons - those being Jacketed hollowpoint rounds.

Please note that the JAG's opinion is entirely correct, and that this would be permissible even if the United States had ratified the Hague Accords.

The Hague Accords on the Laws of Warfare on Land define what is legal behavior for regular armed forces in conflict with another. They do not say anything about how to treat irregulars or even civilians. If the United States wanted to use HP ammunition on its own population, it would not be in violation of the Hague Accords, for instance.

[Gollum1 0]

SF in Iraq and Afghanistan commonly use MK262 or Mk262mod1 ammunition in their personal weapons - those being Jacketed hollowpoint rounds.

Makes perfect sense even if it is illegal...how many enemies with body armor are they going to encounter?

1)Hollowpoint is LESS effective against body armour, not more

Read it again, I first said it made perfect sense then asked a rethorical question (ie. how many? probably zero)...I know they're less effective against body armor.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

23 September 1985 opinion issued by the Judge Advocate General, authored by W. Hays Parks2, Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch, for the signature of Major Hugh R. Overholt, which stated:

Please note that the JAG's opinion is entirely correct, and that this would be permissible even if the United States had ratified the Hague Accords.

The Hague Accords on the Laws of Warfare on Land define what is legal behavior for regular armed forces in conflict with another. They do not say anything about how to treat irregulars or even civilians. If the United States wanted to use HP ammunition on its own population, it would not be in violation of the Hague Accords, for instance.

The problem being defining whether or not the conflict in Iraq is a war or not; according to Bush it is, according to others is is not. If it is a war... ammunition like that should be frowned upon.

It's entirely correct that it's fine to use rounds with cause unnecessary suffering on civilians, but not on enemy combatants?? What a civilised country!

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Read it again, I first said it made perfect sense then asked a rethorical question (ie. how many? probably zero)...I know they're less effective against body armor.

Read what I said again:

I don't give a shit how effective it is or isn't, it should be illegal, and would be if the US were half as civilised as they claim to be.

[Baphomet 0]

Fecking realmedia...  

Nevermind. Saw the post...

[Mister Frag 0]

It's entirely correct that it's fine to use rounds with cause unnecessary suffering on civilians, but not on enemy combatants??  What a civilised country!

This isn't the JAG's or one country's philosophy, but international law. I'm not saying it is correct either. Also, keep in mind that the Hague Accords are more than 100 years old and in need of a major overhaul...