NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[Premislyd]

The abdomen or legs, where the weapons are most probably supposed to be pointed at, are a long, long way down from head height unless they had protesters running around with stilts.

I wouldn't want to get shot in the abdomen or legs with a "less lethal gun."

[Aqizithiuda]

If you shot anyone in the eye with just about anything, there is a good chance they will die. There is no such thing as a perfect less lethal weapon. Rubber bullets can rupture organs and cause concussions, tasters can stop hearts, gas can choke, water cannons can also cause concussions, etc. The point is that it isn't as lethal as being shot by a gun, which is the main important bit.



Now thank you for insulting one of the moderators, Trans. Now cops are trained to not aim for the head with less lethal weapons, but that does't mean that they are always going to hit there. After all in most cases when your using one of these the situation might just be a little tense, which tends to reduce accuracy. Also from the looks of it the officers in both incidents were aiming at large crowds, which means that it is a little harder to aim well.

I think people here are getting the impression that I expected the projectile not to kill her after being shot in her eye. This isn't the point I'm trying to make: it's either very poor judgment on the side of the cop, or shit accuracy with the gun.

"A little harder" to aim well just doesn't cut it. The abdomen or legs, where the weapons are most probably supposed to be pointed at, are a long, long way down from head height unless they had protesters running around with stilts.

Or she was short, or the policeman was hit by a rock/bottle/metal bar as he fired, or he was dodging a rock/bottle/metal bar, or he was jostled by someone dodging a rock/bottle/metal bar, or the woman was bending down to pick something up, or the woman was going to ground as an involuntary reflex as a result of the 303s being used, or the round glanced off something and changed it's path, or the woman was ducking and weaving to avoid police attention after having thrown something, etc, etc, etc.

[New Tsavon]

I'd like to present the M.1905/9K Luftschiff Karabiner

(Credit to Sen for the stock and a few other bits)

[Fordorsia]

I do love me a good kopis.



Might have it as Fordorsia's issued machete after the 30's.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

But your point was that it's not very good at "less-lethal", wasn't it? And you used an example in which the individual did not die.

Basically RN is the sort of mong who would rather see a policeman be cut up and hospitalised while wrestling a knife-wielding criminal to the ground rather than see the policeman do something totalitarian and evil like shoot him with a less-than-lethal weapon.

We've been through this before, with things like riot police being inherently bad or w/ever it was.

The abdomen or legs, where the weapons are most probably supposed to be pointed at...

I dunno, from what I've read, any AFO would aim here without question.

Quite the contrary, Kour. I don't know where you got this impression. You're taking my words completely out of context and creating stuff on your own. If in your book RTL cameramen are knife-wielding criminals then you need to give up writing.

This isn't some sort of generalized rant against less than lethal weapons and how evil and authoritarian they are, you're imagining this. It's just a rant regarding the lack of training or common sense of the two cops specifically, or more probably the lack of accuracy of this specific weapon system.

y u hatin brah

[Transnapastain]

Now cops are trained to not aim for the head with less lethal weapons.

As a minor note, most police training programs I'm aware of actually discourage aiming for the head and, in fact, shots to the head of a target in qualification are not counted. One exception to this that I'm aware of in USAF Security Forces training, who still do two to the chest, one to the head, supposedly. Federal agencies may still train for head shots, I'm not sure.

As to what we do here...



The area shaded in red is the only area on the target that counts. Shots, in 6 round groups, are fired from 3 ft (hip shots, not aimed), 21 ft and 50 ft, and then 21 ft multiple targets, 21 fight simulated night shooting, and 21 feet from behind a barricade using weapon hand first and off hand grip second.

A 100% (all 6 rounds inside the target area) is required for all sections except the 50 ft course, which requires 5 of the 6 rounds to be inside the target zone.

Edit: funny story. My first time shooting, I "missed" at 3 ft. My shots hit outside the target area, instead striking the target in the kidneys. Although I insisted the target was, quite emphatically, dead. I had to re-shoot.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The abdomen or legs, where the weapons are most probably supposed to be pointed at, are a long, long way down from head height unless they had protesters running around with stilts.

I wouldn't want to get shot in the abdomen or legs with a "less lethal gun."

Me neither, but what's your point? It should be safer than getting hit in the head or torso.

[Fordorsia]

I wouldn't want to get shot in the abdomen or legs with a "less lethal gun."

Me neither, but what's your point? It should be safer than getting hit in the head or torso.

Anything is safer than getting hit in the head.


Except visiting the sun maybe. I heard it's pretty rough up there.

[Premislyd]

I wouldn't want to get shot in the abdomen or legs with a "less lethal gun."

Me neither, but what's your point? It should be safer than getting hit in the head or torso.

No. The best place to get shot is your arm.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The abdomen or legs, where the weapons are most probably supposed to be pointed at...

I dunno, from what I've read, any AFO would aim here without question.

..when using lethal force, I presume? We were discussing less lethal weapons not firearms. They are *not* supposed to aim at the same area for obvious reasons.

[Triplebaconation]

This isn't the point I'm trying to make: it's either very poor judgment on the side of the cop, or poor accuracy with the gun.

Evidence seems to point to the latter. It's described as more accurate than a paintball out to 35 meters, and even that degree of accuracy degrades after three hundred rounds.

The 303 isn't a paintball gun at all. Accuracy is in an entirely different league.

Accuracy degrading after 300 rounds doesn't seem very plausible. The officer wasn't trained to use the gun and it was a stressful low-light situation.

Generally bad things will happen when someone gets hit in the eye with bismuth at 300 fps.

[Spirit of Hope]

I dunno, from what I've read, any AFO would aim here without question.

..when using lethal force, I presume? We were discussing less lethal weapons not firearms. They are *not* supposed to aim at the same area for obvious reasons.

For any shooting you aim at center of mass aka the red highlighted area that Trans posted above. I have heard that some training goes for lethal shooting at the upper torso and less lethal at the abdomen. However under most shooting situations your just going to end up shooting at the chest without much time to distinguish and aim better than center of mass.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Me neither, but what's your point? It should be safer than getting hit in the head or torso.

No. The best place to get shot is your arm.

How come?

At rest it is too close to the torso, and as we have seen less-lethal weapons aren't the most accurate out of the bunch, so I wouldn't risk that.

EDIT: Not to mention they're also closer to the head ; if you're shooting at someone in a crowd and you miss it could hit some other guy in the head or torso, whereas with legs it wouldn't be that serious - not taking ricochet in account obviously

Legs are also somewhat easier to hit because they're thicker and their movement (if any) is easier to predict. Also if I were fat I'd prefer getting shot in my belly.

[Premislyd]

No. The best place to get shot is your arm.

How come?

At rest it is too close to the torso, and as we have seen less-lethal weapons aren't the most accurate out of the bunch, so I wouldn't risk that.

Legs are also somewhat easier to hit because they're thicker and their movement (if any) is easier to predict. Also if I were fat I'd prefer getting shot in my belly.

Because your leg has the femoral artery, which is pretty bad if you get it severed, and your torso is full of your ooey, gooey innards.

Now your arm has your subclavian, but it's rather hard to hit

[Fordorsia]

I remember seeing a video where a guy got hit in the mouth by a tear gas canister during the Colombian riots last year. It blew his mouth to pieces. In my opinion, the well-being of those taking part in a riot should be the least of the police's concern, no matter the cause of the riot.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I remember seeing a video where a guy got hit in the mouth by a tear gas canister during the Colombian riots last year. It blew his mouth to pieces. In my opinion, the well-being of those taking part in a riot should be the least of the police's concern, no matter the cause of the riot.

your views don't live up to your "nation type" at all . . . but to each his own.

[Fordorsia]

I remember seeing a video where a guy got hit in the mouth by a tear gas canister during the Colombian riots last year. It blew his mouth to pieces. In my opinion, the well-being of those taking part in a riot should be the least of the police's concern, no matter the cause of the riot.

your views don't live up to your "nation type" at all . . . but to each his own.

huh?

[Sediczja]

snip

your views don't live up to your "nation type" at all . . . but to each his own.

Not being funny, but why should they?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

How come?

At rest it is too close to the torso, and as we have seen less-lethal weapons aren't the most accurate out of the bunch, so I wouldn't risk that.

Legs are also somewhat easier to hit because they're thicker and their movement (if any) is easier to predict. Also if I were fat I'd prefer getting shot in my belly.

Because your leg has the femoral artery, which is pretty bad if you get it severed, and your torso is full of your ooey, gooey innards.

Now your arm has your subclavian, but it's rather hard to hit

If you aim at a guy's arm, and you miss and/or your weapon's accuracy is shit you're closer to your target's (and others') torso and head than if you were to aim at his legs.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

your views don't live up to your "nation type" at all . . . but to each his own.

huh?

Civil Rights Lovefest

(sense the irony)

[Transnapastain]

I remember seeing a video where a guy got hit in the mouth by a tear gas canister during the Colombian riots last year. It blew his mouth to pieces. In my opinion, the well-being of those taking part in a riot should be the least of the police's concern, no matter the cause of the riot.

I assume Ford is making a distinction between demonstrations and riots.

I...personally agree with Ford regarding rioters and their rights. Professionally, I can't put that opinion into practice if I want to keep drawing a paycheck...and I do (even though I'm pretty sure I can get more money on unemployment but that's a whole new topic). If you're stupid enough to riot, and fight the police, you deserve what you get. Did you know that, when presented with a given use of force situation, the average citizen responds that they would have used more force than the officer involved in said situation did?

Demonstrators are fine. Its their right to protest shit in a lawful manner, more power to them.

your views don't live up to your "nation type" at all . . . but to each his own.

Well, duh. No one would need to protest in a civil rights lovefest.

[Gallia-]

The 29th Amendment to the US Constitution is also called the "Right to not be shot by police during riots".

[Dostanuot Loj]

No. The best place to get shot is your arm.

How come?

At rest it is too close to the torso, and as we have seen less-lethal weapons aren't the most accurate out of the bunch, so I wouldn't risk that.

EDIT: Not to mention they're also closer to the head ; if you're shooting at someone in a crowd and you miss it could hit some other guy in the head or torso, whereas with legs it wouldn't be that serious - not taking ricochet in account obviously

Legs are also somewhat easier to hit because they're thicker and their movement (if any) is easier to predict. Also if I were fat I'd prefer getting shot in my belly.

A strike to a joint, for example the knee, with the impact a less then lethal round needs to work, will break the joint. Which, at least in Canada, is equivalent to lethal force (Grievous bodily harm). My understanding is that it is the same in much of the Western world.

Centre of mass for less then lethal weapons is a must, because it means you will hit the area most able to take the impact without grievous bodily harm.

[Spirit of Hope]

I assume Ford is making a distinction between demonstrations and riots.

I...personally agree with Ford regarding rioters and their rights. Professionally, I can't put that opinion into practice if I want to keep drawing a paycheck...and I do (even though I'm pretty sure I can get more money on unemployment but that's a whole new topic). If you're stupid enough to riot, and fight the police, you deserve what you get. Did you know that, when presented with a given use of force situation, the average citizen responds that they would have used more force than the officer involved in said situation did?

Demonstrators are fine. Its their right to protest shit in a lawful manner, more power to them.

Reminds me of the University of California debacle. Students were protesting and camping out on the college without a permit. The campus police tried to disperse them and they linked arms and sat down. Police couldn't move them and pulled out the pepper spray, and started liberally applying it. I remember because I was in a class where we were discussing it and my personal opinion was that the students had it coming because they were protesting without a permit and resisting the lawful attempts of the police to disperse that assembly.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

How come?

At rest it is too close to the torso, and as we have seen less-lethal weapons aren't the most accurate out of the bunch, so I wouldn't risk that.

EDIT: Not to mention they're also closer to the head ; if you're shooting at someone in a crowd and you miss it could hit some other guy in the head or torso, whereas with legs it wouldn't be that serious - not taking ricochet in account obviously

Legs are also somewhat easier to hit because they're thicker and their movement (if any) is easier to predict. Also if I were fat I'd prefer getting shot in my belly.

A strike to a joint, for example the knee, with the impact a less then lethal round needs to work, will break the joint. Which, at least in Canada, is equivalent to lethal force (Grievous bodily harm). My understanding is that it is the same in much of the Western world.

Centre of mass for less then lethal weapons is a must, because it means you will hit the area most able to take the impact without grievous bodily harm.

How hitting someone in the heart or lung can be less serious than a broken knee is beyond me. Aim below the rib cage. And don't use the weapon at a range where its' accuracy cannot ensure a safe hit.