It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A tactical and legal analysis of the Kenosha shootings

page: 19
65
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ontogeny55
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Then the tumble design is against the Geneva convention.

ihl-databases.icrc.org...


Causing a round to tumble is not against geneva convention. what is illegal to use if fragment rounds. They are made to send fragments into the body as the bullet separates or pancakes. Though flat doesnt do that much damage but people belived the myth of using dimes in slugs was more lethal.




posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: vonclod

he claimed .223 and 5.56 don't tumble upon impact. i just showed him that some do. now he's having a little whiny baby hissy fit.



Fairly large assumption there son.



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ontogeny55

That’s not any more true now than when Michael moore said it after Orlando.



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ontogeny55

well the U.S. didn't agree Article IV, Section 3, nor signed off on it.




Then the tumble design is against the Geneva convention.





Most countries signed on the dotted line and agreed to use only ball ammo but there was one country that abstained from signing: the United States. That’s right, we never did actually sign it (we signed part but not all of it). We specifically didn’t sign Article IV and under Article IV, Section 3, you find the part where only ball ammo can be used between two signatories. Wait… we were not and are not a signatory. Remember that for
Hague Convention: Does It Only Allow FMJ vs Hollow Point Ammo?


(post by hounddoghowlie removed for a manners violation)
(post by hounddoghowlie removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ontogeny55

Who cares?

He made them. He bought them from the classifieds. He bought them offline. He borrowed them.

It's irrelevant.

Maybe he hangs around shooting ranges and picks up dropped ammo

It's irrelevant. He has a duty to own a rifle and be ready for battle seeing as he's actively part of the unorganized militia

He did nothing wrong. It's his right to uphold the law and maintain order. It is lawful. Attacking someone is not lawful.

A mob is always a deadly threat.

Arson is a deadly threat

Disarming is a deadly threat

Sorry you don't like the law.



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ontogeny55

Who cares?

He made them. He bought them from the classifieds. He bought them offline. He borrowed them.

It's irrelevant.

Maybe he hangs around shooting ranges and picks up dropped ammo

It's irrelevant. He has a duty to own a rifle and be ready for battle seeing as he's actively part of the unorganized militia

He did nothing wrong. It's his right to uphold the law and maintain order. It is lawful. Attacking someone is not lawful.

A mob is always a deadly threat.

Arson is a deadly threat

Disarming is a deadly threat

Sorry you don't like the law.


So you can just shoot protestors then, cool.

Or you can shoot someone for stepping up or walking you down.

Good job buddy, that's not the law.

You can't just make up that someone was trying to take your weapon and shoot them in the face, when they haven't even touched you.

Not the real world.



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DustDoses

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ontogeny55

Who cares?

He made them. He bought them from the classifieds. He bought them offline. He borrowed them.

It's irrelevant.

Maybe he hangs around shooting ranges and picks up dropped ammo

It's irrelevant. He has a duty to own a rifle and be ready for battle seeing as he's actively part of the unorganized militia

He did nothing wrong. It's his right to uphold the law and maintain order. It is lawful. Attacking someone is not lawful.

A mob is always a deadly threat.

Arson is a deadly threat

Disarming is a deadly threat

Sorry you don't like the law.


So you can just shoot protestors then, cool.

Or you can shoot someone for stepping up or walking you down.

Good job buddy, that's not the law.

You can't just make up that someone was trying to take your weapon and shoot them in the face, when they haven't even touched you.

Not the real world.

Why the lying, your argument not good enough without them..thats a rhetorical question btw.



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DustDoses

You can if you FEEL threatened by them and a prosecutor/jury agrees your FEELING was reasonable. THAT is the law

If you see someone setting fires, you can stop the threat.

If you see a mob engaging in violence, you can stop the threat

If someone tries to take your weapon, you can stop the threat



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

It's all they know how to do

Their arguments don't stand on their own. They can't hold their own in a debate either, especially when the facts only are discussed not opinions and left wing fluff



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ontogeny55

The Geneva convention doesn't apply domestically

It's why we can use teargas on criminals, just not foreign soldiers



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: vonclod

It's all they know how to do

Their arguments don't stand on their own. They can't hold their own in a debate either, especially when the facts only are discussed not opinions and left wing fluff

I'm a lefty, maybe libertarian..really I'm just "me", but I'm also objective. One thing 8-9 years on ATS has given me, is the ability to, on occasion, see when I'm being lied to, and manipulated. All sides do it, but I have to say, I'm disappointed with this whole situation. I mean, we all know the media is full of sh#t, but it's getting ridiculous now.
edit on 3-9-2020 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

My apologies for the gross generalization I have been corrected


And to echo your thought, it is getting ridiculous old friend. All around it is ridiculous we are even at this point



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns
All good, we all do it sometimes(generalise)



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: DustDoses

You can if you FEEL threatened by them and a prosecutor/jury agrees your FEELING was reasonable. THAT is the law

If you see someone setting fires, you can stop the threat.

If you see a mob engaging in violence, you can stop the threat

If someone tries to take your weapon, you can stop the threat


I can show up to a Trump rally, stand on the sidewalk, and point my firearm at people's faces.

If someone yells at me, and approaches me I can shoot them in the face, and a jury is going to buy that I was in reasonable fear of imminent death and let me off.

Cool.



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DustDoses

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: DustDoses

You can if you FEEL threatened by them and a prosecutor/jury agrees your FEELING was reasonable. THAT is the law

If you see someone setting fires, you can stop the threat.

If you see a mob engaging in violence, you can stop the threat

If someone tries to take your weapon, you can stop the threat


I can show up to a Trump rally, stand on the sidewalk, and point my firearm at people's faces.

If someone yells at me, and approaches me I can shoot them in the face, and a jury is going to buy that I was in reasonable fear of imminent death and let me off.

Cool.

False equivalency..big time!! no one had a firearm pointed at any face.

You are so full of it. If you threaten a persons life(because he ruined your gas station burning) and then chase that person..well, just go for it..see what happens.

Try again.

edit on 3-9-2020 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 03:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by ontogeny55 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ontogeny55
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

how did Kyle get military rounds for the M16/M4 and use in an AR15?
Bound to be a sales receipt for that,
I will wait.


Most round tumbling isn't caused by the ammo alone but by the barrel as well. I'd be more inclined to check rifling if tumbling is occurring if all other factors are known. Look for uneven chrome wear. Heat will cause tumbling when the bullet is slightly deformed. At those speeds the tumbling continues into the target. If this doesn't answer the tumbling question then it will likely be stabilization issues associated with bullet weight and sometimes powder charge.

Some bullets are designed to do that in order to create larger wound channels.

He likely had M855A1 which will tumble in the target due to a number of different factors(But not likely out of his barrel). M855A2 is designed for body armor penetration and does not tumble on impact it all. The heavy tungsten penetrator tends to stabilize nicely out of 1:7 twist barrels used on M4s. The M16 has a 20 inch barrel and it has a 1:9 twist and will stabilize M193 well but struggles with M855 series rounds due to the weight difference (55gr vs 62 -75gr). With that rifle you will get tumbling from M855 series rounds as they will be understabilized.




edit on 9 3 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
65
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join