Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

No ifs, no buts. If a country has agreed not to use ammunition that causes unnecessary suffering, IT DOES NOT USE IT. EVER. End of line.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Apparently, given the huge amounts the Bush family is getting from countries such as Saudi Arabia.

And at that, it fails, because you don't understand how it works. When have I ever said that? I suggested you should have them shoot at each other as well, but I've never said that was the only part of collision detection - but then, I understand it a lot better than you. Since you have no clue how collision detection actually works, nor how much work it is for the engine, I think you should stop posting crap about it.

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.

And try not making up tests which don't test anything to do with the subject in hand if you don't understand the subject

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.

Dunno, I really don't consider having to apply for a license and not having convictions "banning". Exactly. Stopping any random psychopath from owning what can be a dangerous weapon is not the same as making them illegal.

Woops! Thanks.

Insane. Well, the infantry losses are, we don't *really* need many sub hunters. *edit* And what bloody new technology? We're still using kit designed from 20 - 80 years ago!

No they aren't. @ milkman: Why ban 'effective' weapons? A little something called the Geneva convention? I know the man was a private contractor; but the US has not signed the relevant treaty banning the use of such weapons anyway, which is why I mentioned it.

Get winamp 5 (www.winamp.com) - it will play the movies.

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.

Well obviously, seeing as you live in that country. I'm from the UK, not Holland.

IMO all of the sights are too 'zoomed out' - the view should be closer to them, and the view should be as if you are looking through the sights with your eyes next to it, not holding the weapon at arms length. They look nice, realistic though.

We agree then

Maybe I would, since exactly that has happened plenty of times. I didn't say they were all totally perfect; I said they are very well behaved. Which they are, especially in relation to the English. Celtic/ Rangers is a religious issue in its own right, but when the same fans go abroad they are a lot better behaved than england fans in general.

No, they don't. He *DIED* (/lost consciousness) - he wasn't knocked down by the force of one, oreven several rounds.

Please don't confuse Britain with England/ vice versa - the Welsh, N. Irish and Scottish fans are very well behaved. I agree.

Are you intending to back that up, or is it just something you were once told? Every unbiased test I've ever seen (New Scientist, Focus, etc) shows no such thing. They do show some ill effects but they are all associated with smoking - eating, vapourising etc do not show the ill effects. Again you resort to the old 'the law says this' crap without mentioning any good reason for the law to be this way. If the law was changed I take it you'd totally support it, as you do now? Crap. Trust me, I know more people that smoke(d) weed than you. Oh look, unsupported assertions cancel each other out. You're confusing two effects here: People who do illegal things 'just to rebel' - are also going to do things like smoke weed. You don't notice, or remember, the thousands if not millions of people who smoke but don't make any trouble. 1 PROVEN fact for you (look up any study) - MJ smokers/ users are not aggressive, violent or confrontational.

There's no wind in a sound stage either, genius