Started by dy031101, June 04, 2011, 05:16:04 PM
Quote from: Maverick on June 04, 2011, 08:18:23 PMOne thing I've never quite understood about this whole issue of 'nice' vs 'nasty' rounds is that getting shot isn't a 'nice' experience in any way, shape or form. Whether a projectile enters a body and stops completely, passes through or some 'explodes' when in the body is moot, IMO. The casualty is hit, nasty things happen in their body and they are either wounded or they expire. Trying to define what's right and wrong within that framework is ridiculous.
QuoteThere's also the issue of 'silencers'. Outlawed by various conventions, but now called 'suppressors' and therefore acceptable.
QuoteThese sorts of things show how beancounters and politicians try to justify the slaughter of humans in some way that makes it acceptable.Go figure.Regards,Mav
Quote from: dy031101 on June 04, 2011, 05:16:04 PMCuriosity- various international conventions banned the use of expanding bullets during military conflicts of signatory nations. What about PMCs, especially those hired as bodyguards and auxilliaries?
Quote from: Maverick on June 05, 2011, 05:39:12 PMStill returns to the whole 'nice vs nasty' thing which is a joke to be honest. Anything that causes maximum damage to the target can't be a bad thing IMO. But then, there's that other debate over 'wounded vs dead' where the wounded casualty takes up time, manpower and affects morale whilst the dead casualty is just that, dead.Regards,Mav
Page created in 0.037 seconds with 23 queries.