self-defense? lol

Home of discussion, generally. If it doesn't go in any of the other forums, post it in here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Slave_Master
Strider Elite
Strider Elite
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 7:28 am
Location: On the dark side of the moon

Post by Slave_Master »

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD wrote:they wont listen to reason because they think everyone should have a gun and be able to use it at anytime, be it for target pratice or self-defense.
And so the the number one fan of "Uncle Joe" stumbles into yet another thread to call everyone else idiots and himself the enlightened teacher of us poor fools.

last time i checked guns were created to kill people and if you cant see that you are disillusioned by propeganda.
That issue has already been addressed. Read the thread next time. My bad, I disagree with you, I've been disillusioned by propAganda.

Look up 'disillusioned' some time, while you're at it.

they werent created for the good of society or for target practice.
saying a bow or knife is an equally deadly weapon is a pretty toolish statement in itself. i dont see people going into buildings or schools and stabbing multiple people at the same time
Way to assume that all gun-related homicides are part of a mass murder spree. If I want to murder or rob a single person, I can just as easily do it with a knife as a gun.
fuck
User avatar
Forty-six & Two
Wandering Hero
Wandering Hero
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 11:52 pm
Location: Out of sight
Contact:

Post by Forty-six & Two »

airsoft guy wrote:They could do that same thing with a knife, or their fists! If they're so fucking insane they've probably got a record of it anyways and there are laws against insane people from owning firearms, Gun Control Act of 1968 I believe is the one in question, there's something in there about retards, non-citizens, insane folk and minors from owning firarms.
Well, of course they could use anything to kill me. But then again, guns dont really serve any important role in the society. Cars do, and cutting the hands of everyone so they cant hit you seems abit impossible.

Ok, we agree that anything can be used as a weapon? Then why not get rid of "combat created" knives and firearms? They are some of the most efficient ways to kill. Again you cannot compare them to cars, they have different purposes as an object. And even though some people might use a gun for target practice, fact is it was made for killing and is as an item alot more specialised at it than a car or a banana for that sake,.
airsoft guy wrote:If someone mugs you and you pull a gun that's not a war that's you defending yourself. That mugger? He does not deserve to live, he is an animal and deserves to be treated like one, and what do you do to bad dogs? Kill them.
Of course its not a war in the literal sense, im making an analogy here. If a criminal knows that the guy hes gona mug properly has a gun, he wont even think about not hurting you, he will probaly just kill you and take your money. You know what that means? Arming yourself makes you a "soldier" in the sense, you are no longer a civilian. You have entered the "war", armed and ready for combat.
airsoft guy wrote:And shouldn't you be in bed?
Yea, I should, but I just hate leaving a good discussion :p

But ive pressed it ot far now... this is my final post of the night.
Image
User avatar
Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD
Hero of the Desert
Hero of the Desert
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2002 7:50 am
Location: Legitimate Businessmen's Social Club

Post by Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD »

slave im afraid you should be designated the rank of perpetual dink.

yes, you sound big and smart correcting words and making no point at all.

oh and have you ever seen anyone robbed with a 60 pound compound bow?
Blargh wrote:While the way in which the stance is made could be done with at least a pretense of civility - being far more conducive to others actually paying attention than copious swearing - it just wouldn't be Mandy otherwise.
S4ur0n27 wrote:Dexter is getting MFG'ed for the first time D:
Koki wrote:He must be Mandallorian FaLLouT God'ded ASAP :salute:
Nuclear Gandhi
Banned Bitch
Banned Bitch
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 5:21 am
Contact:

Post by Nuclear Gandhi »

coughCANADAcough
User avatar
Slave_Master
Strider Elite
Strider Elite
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 7:28 am
Location: On the dark side of the moon

Post by Slave_Master »

Well, of course they could use anything to kill me. But then again, guns dont really serve any important role in the society


Doyle already addressed that issue. Great job at ignoring it.

Of course its not a war in the literal sense, im making an analogy here. If a criminal knows that the guy hes gona mug properly has a gun, he wont even think about not hurting you, he will probaly just kill you and take your money.
Or he will think twice about mugging you, knowing full well that another armed citizen will blow his head should he shoot you.

Arming yourself makes you a "soldier" in the sense, you are no longer a civilian. You have entered the "war", armed and ready for combat.
So be it. An organized armed citizenship versus singular criminals and gangs is way way better than singular criminals and gangs preying upon a disorganized, unarmed citizenship.

MFG wrote:slave im afraid you should be designated the rank of perpetual dink
.

That's a bit hypocritical now, isn't it?

yes, you sound big and smart correcting words and making no point at all.


You were the one that drunkenly stumbled into this thread and incoherently ranted and raved about ignorant morons that don't listen to reason, and then you just reposted old arguments that had already been destroyed. You have no point.

oh and have you ever seen anyone robbed with a 60 pound compound bow?
Read my post, if you still know how to read after burning every book except the Communist Manifesto. All I mentioned was knives. And if you're telling me you've never heard of a person robbed with a knife, then you're either a liar, or as stupid as you make yourself out to be.
Last edited by Slave_Master on Fri Oct 10, 2003 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
fuck
User avatar
trythebill
Vault Veteran
Vault Veteran
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 10:22 pm

Post by trythebill »

why must the DAC boards always hate on the guns? as for myself this is my take:
Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:
He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no
authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense,
incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek
the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature
to defend itself.
Kinda long, but good essay on the American view of RKBA versus the rest of the world.....


___________________________________________________________
The rigors of the country’s frontier led to the proliferation of firearms and a deeply ingrained pro-gun culture.


Unlike most of the world's people, many Americans view the possession of firearms as the norm rather than the exception.
The European and Japanese feudal aristocracies loathed firearms, because they eliminated the role of the nobility in combat. Firearms democratized warfare, penetrated armor, and allowed fighting from a distance, thereby greatly reducing the importance of the nobility's old skills with swords in close combat. In Japan and much of Europe, the aristocracy promoted laws restricting or prohibiting the possession of firearms, especially handguns, by common people.

In continental Europe and England, hunting was tightly controlled by the aristocracy. Common people were often forbidden even to kill a rabbit that was eating their crops on their own land. No sane governor or legislature in the American colonies would have attempted to impose European-style hunting or gun-control laws, for such repressive laws would have made it impossible for much of the American population to survive.
Colonial laws generally required each household to possess a firearm, for service in the militia and other civil defense. Households that could not afford a gun were often given "public arms" by the government to keep at home.
Other English colonies did not have as rough a frontier as the United States did. Canada's white settlement was mostly peaceful, thanks to careful government negotiations with the indigenous peoples. Nor did Canada have a "Wild West" like the United States, where citizens ubiquitously carried handguns for protection, in the absence of effective law enforcement. In Canada, though, the Mounted Police showed up when the first railroad towns were being built. Order was imposed from above.

Fight for independence

The American Revolution was in part assisted by America's already well-developed gun culture. The United States won independence through a sustained armed popular revolt, as the Swiss (armed with crossbows) had done beginning in 1291, when the first three cantons battled for freedom from Austria.
Of the approximately 400,000 American men in active service against Great Britain during the Revolution, the militia amounted to about 165,000. Although the militiamen turned in some miserable performances, such as when those from Virginia fled at Camden, South Carolina, in 1780, the irregular forces, when supported by the Continental Army, could fight effectively. For example, they did splendidly in the 1781 Battle of Cowpens, South Carolina--the turning point of the war in the South--which set the stage for the coup de grace at Yorktown, Virginia.
The militia played a major role in defeating Gen. John Burgoyne's 1777 Saratoga campaign, which had tried to isolate New England from the rest of the United States. In 1778--79, the Kentucky militia, led by George Rogers Clark, captured key British posts on the Wabash River in the future states of Indiana and Illinois. The victories helped legitimize America's claim to all British territory east of the Mississippi, a claim that Britain eventually recognized in the 1783 peace treaty.
In Washington's Partisan War: 1775--1783, Mark W. Kwasny examines George Washington's use of the militias in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The scholar writes that while those forces could not by themselves defeat the Redcoats in a pitched battle, the irregulars were essential to American success: "Militiamen were available everywhere and could respond to sudden attacks and invasions often faster than the army could." Washington "used them in small parties to harass and raid the army and to guard all the places he could not send Continentals."
As the war came to an end, Washington wrote in his 1783 "Circular to the States": "The Militia of this Country must be considered as the Palladium of our security, and the first effectual resort in case of hostility."

State and federal constitutions

Beginning in 1774, when the British army occupying Boston began confiscating the inhabitants' firearms, the American Revolution confirmed what the founders had learned from their studies of ancient Greece and Rome, as well as from English and French history: The possession of arms was essential to the retention of political and civil rights. Guns and Government

Thus, starting with the Pennsylvania and North Carolina constitutions in 1776, American state constitutions have usually included a right to arms provision. The federal constitution added the Second Amendment in 1791.
The federal and state constitutions have helped develop a "rights consciousness" far stronger than can be found in any other nation. The very existence of written rights--taught in school and upheld by the courts--inculcates in people a greater and greater determination to uphold their rights.
In this way, the rights consciousness engendered by the written "right to arms" led to additional protections for rights. Since 1963, the people of Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have chosen, either through their legislature or through a direct vote, to add a right to arms to their state constitution or to readopt the right to arms or strengthen an existing right. In every state where the people have had the opportunity to vote directly, they have voted for the right to arms by overwhelming margins. In 1998, Wisconsin voted the right to arms in a 74 percent landslide.
The only other nation with a right to arms in its constitution is Mexico. As stated in Article 10: "The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms in their homes for their security and legitimate defense with the exception of those prohibited by federal law and of those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Guard. Federal law shall determine the cases, conditions and place in which the inhabitants may be authorized to bear arms."
The Mexican constitutional provision may create some rights consciousness in that nation, although the effect is undoubtedly diminished by the general cynicism about the law, and the lack of respect given most constitutional rights in that nation.

The NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is another cause and consequence of America's gun culture. The group was founded in 1871 by Union generals who were dismayed by poor Union marksmanship during the Civil War. The Confederate forces, having a higher percentage of farm boys who were familiar with guns, had better marksmanship. The NRA is not only the most powerful gun lobby in the world, it is (according to Fortune magazine's annual ratings) the most powerful lobby of any kind in the United States. Three of the last four American presidents have been NRA members, and one American president, Ulysses Grant, served as NRA chief after his term ended.
The NRA is more successful than its foreign counterparts because it operates in a better political environment. Only Switzerland devolves more power than the United States to local governments.
Party control of elected officials is weaker in the United States than elsewhere, the political system is less centralized, and the role of citizen political activists is considerably greater than in most other democracies. All of these factors give the NRA's four million members a much greater ability to influence elected officials than gun rights groups in other countries have. In turn, the NRA's political successes help preserve widespread participation in the shooting sports and the ability to own guns for personal protection. Because a large share of the population is armed, the NRA has a large potential base of members and activists.
Notably, modern supporters of the Second Amendment, like their forbears of the founding era, are quite sensitive to "slippery slope" arguments. The experience of Great Britain suggests that these activists are not mistaken. Early in the twentieth century, Great Britain had almost no violent crime, no gun control laws, and widespread gun ownership. During the twentieth century, a variety of "moderate" licensing and registration laws were imposed, enforced liberally, and then, through secret administrative decrees from London, enforced with greater and greater severity. Currently, only about 4 percent of the British population own guns lawfully. The fraction of the population is much too small to resist the drive of the Home Office bureaucracy for gradual gun prohibition.

American exceptionalism

While some Americans are embarrassed that their nation has a distinctively strong constitutional right to arms and a vigorous gun culture, the United States consciously created itself to be different from Europe. As a North Carolina Supreme Court justice explained in the 1968 case of State v. Dawson, "It was the very fact that the right to bear arms had been infringed in England, and that this is a step frequently taken by a despotic government, which caused the adoption of the provision in the North Carolina Declaration of Rights in 1776 and the insertion in the Federal Bill of Rights of the Second Amendment."
The early republic's leading constitutional commentators, St. George Tucker and William Rawle, pointedly contrasted the robust American right to bear arms with what they thought was a withered British right. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's famed Commentaries on the Constitution also contrasted the vigorous American right to bear arms with its feeble British cousin.
The independent existence of the United States came into being with a document whose opening words affirm the right of the people to overthrow the government. In Europe, armed masses represent disorder; in the United States, they are the foundation of the political order.
Vanquished: Gen. John Burgoyne surrenders on October 17, 1777, at Saratoga, New York. American militiamen, steeped in the colonies’ generations-old gun culture, were a major factor in his defeat. U.S. Capitol
James Madison, in Federalist 46, extolled "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," in contrast with the kingdoms of Europe, whose "governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Madison predicted that if the European peasantry were armed and rebellious local governments (like American states) existed, "the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned."
Joel Barlow, a leading diplomat and author of the 1780s and '90s, wrote about this in his book Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe. He said that in Europe, an armed populace would be regarded "as a mark of an uncivilized people, extremely dangerous to a well-ordered society." Barlow contended that because the American system was built on popular sovereignty, which brought out the best in man's character, the people could be trusted with guns: "It is because the people are civilized that they are with safety armed."
Conversely, Revolutionary-era Americans thought an unarmed populace was a sign of ethical decay. The Continental Congress distinguished Americans "trained to arms from the infancy and animated by love of liberty" from the "debauched, dissipated, and disarmed" British. We can assume that America's founders would not have been surprised to see that starting in 1936 with Hitler's Anschluss of Austria, European elites speedily surrendered their nations to the Nazis, either before the shooting began or a few weeks afterward.
Hitler repeatedly made plans for the invasion of Switzerland, but they were never executed because German casualties would have been immense. The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that with his bayonet, and then with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people.

Profound differences among nations

According to the Small Arms Survey 2003, the European nations of Norway, Finland, France, and Germany have the most Origins of a Gun Culture

While Europeans see an armed populace as uncivilized, Americans view the issue through the lens of popular sovereignty, believing that gun ownership makes society safer. The survey estimates that Americans own between 83 and 96 guns per 100 persons, or nearly one per person.
But what most distinguishes American gun culture even from prevailing attitudes in countries such as Canada--which has a very strong hunting tradition and rate of rifle ownership nearly as high as the U.S. level--is that Americans connect gun ownership not just to recreation but to survival and sovereignty. Because about half of all American households own guns, America's "home invasion" burglary rate is far lower than in countries such as Britain, Canada, Ireland, and the Netherlands, which prohibit defensive gun ownership.
About two-thirds of American states allow law-abiding adults to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection. Encouraged by the NRA and other gun-rights groups, many of these citizens carry their guns more frequently since September 11. They know that in case of a terrorist attack on a shopping center, school, church, or synagogue, it will be America's citizens who will be responsible for taking immediate action to save their fellow Americans.
Such preparations for civil defense are appalling to American gun-prohibition advocates and their international allies. At both the personal and the national level, Americans tend to expect to protect themselves by force, and Europeans tend to expect a superior entity to do it for them. The cultural differences between America and Europe are in some ways just as profound in the early twenty-first century as they were in the late eighteenth.


__________________
-NRA member
more: http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/libra ... _Wood.html

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/cowards.html

http://www.a-human-right.com/

food for thought:
Hitler took the guns from the jews=+6 million dead
Stalin took the guns from everyone=+20 million dead
U.N. troops disarm Bosnians=8,000 dead



Image
Photo by Oleg Volk
Last edited by trythebill on Fri Oct 10, 2003 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form."
-- Winston Churchill
User avatar
Wolfman Walt
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 5243
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: La Grange, Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Wolfman Walt »

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD wrote:46&2 take this as your education in gun control nuts. americans dont want gun control because they fear everything that walks the planet, including communism.
they wont listen to reason because they think everyone should have a gun and be able to use it at anytime, be it for target pratice or self-defense.

last time i checked guns were created to kill people and if you cant see that you are disillusioned by propeganda. they werent created for the good of society or for target practice.

saying a bow or knife is an equally deadly weapon is a pretty toolish statement in itself. i dont see people going into buildings or schools and stabbing multiple people at the same time.
First point....why the hell do you include communism into every argument? I realize you're a diehard fool for communist, but honestly, is it REALLY neccesary? Next, I'm pretty sure we don't fear everything that walks the planet since we have open trade with other countries and allow immigration. Way to make a dumb blanket term commie =/.

As for the being able to own a gun and use it at any time, why not? And don't take that out of context in that "Well you can just use it to kill anyone dur di dur". Why can't I go out and practice with my handgun anytime I wish? Oh I'm sorry, I guess I don't agree with your Hitler-esque policies, guess it's off to the liquidation chamber.

Once again, alot of objects get used for differant purposes then they were originally intended to. Read earlier in the thread, you may learn something. I believe Doyle made it perfectly clear in a logical manor that if something is used more for another purpose then what it was originally created for, then it <b>kinda</b> takes on a whole new purpose. Incase you're too lazy, look at my example of Yo-Yo's and Boomerangs again.

Exactly how many people have you seen run into buildings and schools and kill multiple people? I'm guessing none. As for it happening with knives, I'm pretty sure none of us have SEEN it, but it happens more often then you think. I'm guessing you've never really been in a situation where you've had to defend yourself against a knife or a gun, unfortunetly you learn quickly that a knife is just as dangerous if not more so.

edit:
Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD wrote:oh and have you ever seen anyone robbed with a 60 pound compound bow?
Have you ever seen anyone robbed period?
Harriers for the cup.
User avatar
Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD
Hero of the Desert
Hero of the Desert
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2002 7:50 am
Location: Legitimate Businessmen's Social Club

Post by Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD »

what the hell do all you guys bullshit?
a knife is as deadly as a gun but a gun has one thing a knife doesnt, range.
why the hell is all this shit relating back to muggings?
do all you americans mug each other?
Blargh wrote:While the way in which the stance is made could be done with at least a pretense of civility - being far more conducive to others actually paying attention than copious swearing - it just wouldn't be Mandy otherwise.
S4ur0n27 wrote:Dexter is getting MFG'ed for the first time D:
Koki wrote:He must be Mandallorian FaLLouT God'ded ASAP :salute:
User avatar
trythebill
Vault Veteran
Vault Veteran
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 10:22 pm

Post by trythebill »

ze german speak is funny stuff.

Imagephoto by Oleg Volk.
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form."
-- Winston Churchill
User avatar
Slave_Master
Strider Elite
Strider Elite
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 7:28 am
Location: On the dark side of the moon

Post by Slave_Master »

what the hell do all you guys bullshit?
When posts, such as yours, are incoherent, we have to guess as to what they're trying to say.

a knife is as deadly as a gun but a gun has one thing a knife doesnt, range.


Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

why the hell is all this shit relating back to muggings?
do all you americans mug each other?
Funny, I remember someone asking if I've ever seen a person mugged with a 60 pound compound bow. You seem to have the short term memory of a goldfish.
fuck
User avatar
Wolfman Walt
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member
Posts: 5243
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: La Grange, Kentucky
Contact:

Post by Wolfman Walt »

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD wrote:a knife is as deadly as a gun but a gun has one thing a knife doesnt, range.
Thank you captian obvious, you may now return to your station. It might be worth noting that range in most self defense/violent crime situations are close quarters meaning that a knife is just as good as a gun. I guess we didn't think that =_(.
Harriers for the cup.
Hammer
Banned Bitch
Banned Bitch
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 5:05 am

Post by Hammer »

I'm going to clear some things up since it is obvious to me most of the assholes in this thread have no clue how purchasing firearms in this country works.

I'm a holder of a Class 3 Firearms license, that allows me to buy fully automatic weaponry, I have posted my collection here before and people can attest it's pretty sizeable. However people like me who choose to buy this many firearms must pay for that special license which also has a yearly fee on top of the already outrageous tax you have to pay just to buy an automatic weapon.

For example my Browning M2 cost me $8,000 when I bought it, I paid approximately $800 in tax due it being an automatic weapon and also had to go through a very strict background check. Now you may be saying "Well you pay for a license, not everybody has to go through the same shit you do." That is flat out wrong. When you're going out to buy none Class 3 firearms you must be 18 years old, no psychological or criminal record, and look like a respectable individual. The first two traits are checked through a system called "Insta-check" where your drivers license and social security number are sent out to the State Police and checked for any history of foul play.

If you pass this test, which most do, you are then allowed to purchase the firearm directly from the seller granted he is an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder. If you wish to purchase a pistol the same rules apply except you must be 21 years of age.

In the United States there are a good bit of people who are like me and enjoy buying the evil, pointless, down right morally despicable assault rifles. The reasoning is pretty simple, they're the sports cars of the firearm world. They are the most expensive, rarest, and best the market has to offer. These "sports cars" also account for less then 1% of all firearms crimes committed in the United States, check out the website "Justfacts.com" for a report done about gun crimes in the U.S.A, it is a very informative read.

Conclusion: According to the people here I'm just "Another redneck who buys too many guns" but ya know what? I don't give two shits what you think and there aint a damn thing you can do about my hobby.
User avatar
SuperH
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 9:31 am

Post by SuperH »

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD wrote:a knife is as deadly as a gun but a gun has one thing a knife doesnt, range.
I'm going to jump into this thread to point out that you do a bad job thinking. If a gun is as deadly as a knife, but has a longer range, doesn't that make it more deadly then a knife? Thanks, I thought so. GG N RM.
User avatar
Slave_Master
Strider Elite
Strider Elite
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 7:28 am
Location: On the dark side of the moon

Post by Slave_Master »

No, because knives are so fucking DEADLY it takes the ranged projectile feature of guns to catch up to them.
fuck
User avatar
SuperH
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 9:31 am

Post by SuperH »

Oh sorry, my bad. I forgot that knives can turn a torso inside out in one high velocity impact.
Doyle
Strider Elite
Strider Elite
Posts: 939
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 6:41 am

Post by Doyle »

SuperH wrote:Oh sorry, my bad. I forgot that knives can turn a torso inside out in one high velocity impact.
They sure can. In fact, knives actually strike with more force and will penetrate a lot of body armor that cops wear.
Literacy is overated.
User avatar
InvisibleMonkey
Vault Elite
Vault Elite
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 3:34 pm
Location: Turn around.
Contact:

Post by InvisibleMonkey »

No, it penetrates armor because it is pointed, body armor is woven so it can spread apart the threads.
Irony is a cruel, sadistic bitch.
User avatar
SuperH
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 9:31 am

Post by SuperH »

They penetrate kevlar not because they use more force, but because of the type of force applied. Kevlar body armor is meant to stop a blunter force than that of a sharp knife blade. For the same reason, plate mail armor would stop a knife but not a bullet, they protect against different things.

Editation : Woops too slow. But yeah, what he said.
Hammer
Banned Bitch
Banned Bitch
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 5:05 am

Post by Hammer »

How many cops wear full plate mail? If they did it should be enchanted to stop bullets.
Doyle
Strider Elite
Strider Elite
Posts: 939
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 6:41 am

Post by Doyle »

Heh. Yeah, I know. I never actually said that's why it penetrated, I just said it did.
Literacy is overated.
Post Reply