NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[Purpelia]

I have newer heard of the 303 before. Now that I've looked up I see why. That thing is... a gun meant not to kill... That's like... It does not even have a bayonet lug for crying out loud.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb trees, it will remain forever stupid in your eyes.

You would be surprised. Fish actually score quite well in that regard. It's the birds I have problems with. The dam things just won't climb. Even after I sever their wings.

[Fordorsia]

What is so reputable about the FN 303? Nothing of interest IMHO.. It's not very good at that "less-lethal" bit, search for yourself. In AmeriKKKa a woman (google says Victoria Snelgrove) got shot in the eye and died as a consequence, and according to Wikipedia's undoubtedly accurate and trusted *sigh* sources, in Luxembourg an RTL cameraman got shot with one in the finger, breaking it.

Well he didn't die, now did he?

EDIT: Also Trans is going to have a bone to pick with you after that cop comment.

I doubt it. I haven't seen him here for a while.

[Spirit of Hope]

FN P90
FN MAG
FN Minimi
FN 303
FN SCAR
I'm sure there are others but that is kinda the highlight.

What is so reputable about the FN 303? Nothing of interest IMHO.. It's not very good at that "less-lethal" bit, search for yourself. In AmeriKKKa a woman (google says Victoria Snelgrove) got shot in the eye and died as a consequence, and according to Wikipedia's undoubtedly accurate and trusted *sigh* sources, in Luxembourg an RTL cameraman got shot with one in the finger, breaking it.

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, we can assume all cops in the world are stupid idiots who have no idea what they're doing (which is a viable assumption really) OR the thing has shit accuracy. Training (if not, at least common sense) should tell you NOT to hit someone in the eye, or anywhere in the head region for that matter, regardless of the size of the "LESS LETHAL" sticker and NOT to hit someone in the hand (darned RTL cameramen! it surely must have been a prop camera actually containing a flamethrower or RPG!) , especially not in the back of the hand (which is probably what happened unless, even worse, the policeman hit a cameraman who wasn't even facing him, or was putting his hands up or protecting himself with them), because obviously there's very little fat or muscle there, only relatively fragile bone.

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.

[Bezombia]

Well he didn't die, now did he?

EDIT: Also Trans is going to have a bone to pick with you after that cop comment.

I doubt it. I haven't seen him here for a while.

He posted here four days ago.

[Transnapastain]

What is so reputable about the FN 303? Nothing of interest IMHO.. It's not very good at that "less-lethal" bit, search for yourself. In AmeriKKKa a woman (google says Victoria Snelgrove) got shot in the eye and died as a consequence, and according to Wikipedia's undoubtedly accurate and trusted *sigh* sources, in Luxembourg an RTL cameraman got shot with one in the finger, breaking it.

Well he didn't die, now did he?

EDIT: Also Trans is going to have a bone to pick with you after that cop comment.

Really not worth my time, I mean, I'm fair to busy eating doughnuts and hitting people in the eyes with my Taser.

Whoops.

Seriously though. Shit happens. All the training in the world can not stop it from happening. An officer may attempt to use his baton to subdue a subject, he may execute a proper strike, intended to strike the subject in the forearm or thigh, as per his training, that subject may move, and the officer may accidentally strike his head, injuring him. I personally know of a case where that exact thing happen and the subject lost an eye. That is regrettable, and compensation was made as well it can be, since we obviously can't give him his eye back. It was also unavoidable outside of A) the officer letting the subject continue to fight him, possibly being injured himself in the process or B) the subject not being a twat and fighting police.

That doesn't make "less lethal" devices useless. In the example above, at now time did the department OR the subjects family call for the removal of Asp batons from officers scabbards after the fact. Why, because that's just fucking dumb. The FN 303 doesn't really seem to be any different in use than XREP Taser rounds, or bean bag shotgun rounds. Both of those have caused regrettable accidents too...both of them are still utilized. Why? Because their utility far outweighs the danger they pose, and the option to probably not hurt someone as opposed to certainly hurting someone is a good one.

I'd be interested to see the number of successful uses of the FN 303 (surely greater than 2) vs the claim of it being "bad at its job" with two incidents over....10 years.

Yup, thats statistically significant.

Are there possibly, even probably, more? Sure. Does the bad outweigh the good? No, I don't think so. But what do I know, I'm obviously incompetent by default because I wear a badge.

I doubt it. I haven't seen him here for a while.

Doesn't mean I'm not here.

[Fordorsia]

Motherfuckers here be like water on tap.

[Bezombia]

Doesn't mean I'm not here.

Behind my veil, unseen yet present, I was the force that moved that mighty body. Something something something Racine something.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Well he didn't die, now did he?

EDIT: Also Trans is going to have a bone to pick with you after that cop comment.

Really not worth my time, I mean, I'm fair to busy eating doughnuts and hitting people in the eyes with my Taser.

Whoops.

Seriously though. Shit happens. All the training in the world can not stop it from happening. An officer may attempt to use his baton to subdue a subject, he may execute a proper strike, intended to strike the subject in the forearm or thigh, as per his training, that subject may move, and the officer may accidentally strike his head, injuring him. I personally know of a case where that exact thing happen and the subject lost an eye. That is regrettable, and compensation was made as well it can be, since we obviously can't give him his eye back. It was also unavoidable outside of A) the officer letting the subject continue to fight him, possibly being injured himself in the process or B) the subject not being a twat and fighting police.

That doesn't make "less lethal" devices useless. In the example above, at now time did the department OR the subjects family call for the removal of Asp batons from officers scabbards after the fact. Why, because that's just fucking dumb.

I'd be interested to see the number of successful uses of the FN 303 (surely greater than 2) vs the claim of it being "bad at its job" with two incidents over....10 years.

Yup, thats statistically significant.

Are there possibly, even probably, more? Sure. Does the bad outweigh the good? No, I don't think so. But what do I know, I'm obviously incompetent by default because I wear a badge.

I doubt it. I haven't seen him here for a while.

Doesn't mean I'm not here.

I was joking, trans. I can't believe you guys took it seriously

[Premislyd]

Really not worth my time, I mean, I'm fair to busy eating doughnuts and hitting people in the eyes with my Taser.

Whoops.

Seriously though. Shit happens. All the training in the world can not stop it from happening. An officer may attempt to use his baton to subdue a subject, he may execute a proper strike, intended to strike the subject in the forearm or thigh, as per his training, that subject may move, and the officer may accidentally strike his head, injuring him. I personally know of a case where that exact thing happen and the subject lost an eye. That is regrettable, and compensation was made as well it can be, since we obviously can't give him his eye back. It was also unavoidable outside of A) the officer letting the subject continue to fight him, possibly being injured himself in the process or B) the subject not being a twat and fighting police.

That doesn't make "less lethal" devices useless. In the example above, at now time did the department OR the subjects family call for the removal of Asp batons from officers scabbards after the fact. Why, because that's just fucking dumb.

I'd be interested to see the number of successful uses of the FN 303 (surely greater than 2) vs the claim of it being "bad at its job" with two incidents over....10 years.

Yup, thats statistically significant.

Are there possibly, even probably, more? Sure. Does the bad outweigh the good? No, I don't think so. But what do I know, I'm obviously incompetent by default because I wear a badge.



Doesn't mean I'm not here.

I was joking, trans. I can't believe you guys took it seriously

lol it's only a prototype

[Transnapastain]

Really not worth my time, I mean, I'm fair to busy eating doughnuts and hitting people in the eyes with my Taser.

Whoops.

Seriously though. Shit happens. All the training in the world can not stop it from happening. An officer may attempt to use his baton to subdue a subject, he may execute a proper strike, intended to strike the subject in the forearm or thigh, as per his training, that subject may move, and the officer may accidentally strike his head, injuring him. I personally know of a case where that exact thing happen and the subject lost an eye. That is regrettable, and compensation was made as well it can be, since we obviously can't give him his eye back. It was also unavoidable outside of A) the officer letting the subject continue to fight him, possibly being injured himself in the process or B) the subject not being a twat and fighting police.

That doesn't make "less lethal" devices useless. In the example above, at now time did the department OR the subjects family call for the removal of Asp batons from officers scabbards after the fact. Why, because that's just fucking dumb.

I'd be interested to see the number of successful uses of the FN 303 (surely greater than 2) vs the claim of it being "bad at its job" with two incidents over....10 years.

Yup, thats statistically significant.

Are there possibly, even probably, more? Sure. Does the bad outweigh the good? No, I don't think so. But what do I know, I'm obviously incompetent by default because I wear a badge.



Doesn't mean I'm not here.

I was joking, trans. I can't believe you guys took it seriously

Guess I was too stupid to read your sarcasm.

[Bezombia]

I was joking, trans. I can't believe you guys took it seriously

lol it's only a prototype

I admit, I laughed.

[Premislyd]

lol it's only a prototype

I admit, I laughed.

Then my job is done

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

shot in the eye and died

You can't be serious.

You're genuinely surprised by this?

RTL cameraman got shot with one in the finger, breaking it.

Hate to break it to you, but this is going to happen with any sort of firearm.

1.No. Not really. What surprises me is the stupidity of the cop who did it, or the shit accuracy of the weapon.

But really, a less lethal projectile to the eye doesn't mean autokill. It's not a bullet, you know.

2. The whole point behind a less lethal gun is that it doesn't do shit that would happen anyway with any sort of firearm. And as stated he shouldn't have shot him in the hand in the first place (or shot him at all, WTF is this, DPRK? )

[Premislyd]

You can't be serious.

You're genuinely surprised by this?



Hate to break it to you, but this is going to happen with any sort of firearm.

1.No. Not really. What surprises me is the stupidity of the cop who did it, or the shit accuracy of the weapon.

But really, a less lethal projectile to the eye doesn't mean autokill. It's not a bullet, you know.

2. The whole point behind a less lethal gun is that it doesn't do shit that would happen anyway with any sort of firearm. And as stated he shouldn't have shot him in the hand in the first place (or shot him at all, WTF is this, DPRK? )

Any sort of projectile entering your skull via eye socket has a very high (>90%) chance of killing you since your brain is literally right behind your eyes.

A less lethal gun is still a gun, it's just, well, less lethal obviously.

[Sevvania]

Apparently the accuracy of the FN 303 also degrades significantly after about three hundred rounds. Even assuming that the officers in both incidents were using brand new FN 303's, FN describes the projectiles as having "greater accuracy than a standard paintball round". Paintball rounds aren't something I associate with accuracy, so I would think that these factors could have played into the injuries sustained in both instances. It doesn't sound like a precision weapon that can snipe eyeballs and fingers.

" The whole point behind a less lethal gun is that it doesn't do shit that would happen anyway with any sort of firearm." - Republica Newland
That's why they call it "less lethal" and not "nonlethal".

[Bezombia]

You can't be serious.

You're genuinely surprised by this?



Hate to break it to you, but this is going to happen with any sort of firearm.

1.No. Not really. What surprises me is the stupidity of the cop who did it, or the shit accuracy of the weapon.

But really, a less lethal projectile to the eye doesn't mean autokill. It's not a bullet, you know.

2. The whole point behind a less lethal gun is that it doesn't do shit that would happen anyway with any sort of firearm. And as stated he shouldn't have shot him in the hand in the first place (or shot him at all, WTF is this, DPRK? )

Issue police officers with paintball. If the prisoner gets marked, he's obligated to turn himself in.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What is so reputable about the FN 303? Nothing of interest IMHO.. It's not very good at that "less-lethal" bit, search for yourself. In AmeriKKKa a woman (google says Victoria Snelgrove) got shot in the eye and died as a consequence, and according to Wikipedia's undoubtedly accurate and trusted *sigh* sources, in Luxembourg an RTL cameraman got shot with one in the finger, breaking it.

Well he didn't die, now did he?

EDIT: Also Trans is going to have a bone to pick with you after that cop comment.

He wouldn't have died even with a .50 BMG, that's completely beside the point

[Virana]

2. The whole point behind a less lethal gun is that it doesn't do shit that would happen anyway with any sort of firearm. And as stated he shouldn't have shot him in the hand in the first place (or shot him at all, WTF is this, DPRK? )

Wait

I thought the whole point of a less lethal gun was to be, well, not lethal. And last time I checked, broken fingers aren't very lethal.

Also, no, if this was the DPRK, the guy would get a lot more than a nonlethal shot to the hand.

[Bezombia]

Well he didn't die, now did he?

EDIT: Also Trans is going to have a bone to pick with you after that cop comment.

He wouldn't have died even with a .50 BMG, that's completely beside the point

99% sure a finger shot with a Mosin is fatal

[Sevvania]

Well he didn't die, now did he?

EDIT: Also Trans is going to have a bone to pick with you after that cop comment.

He wouldn't have died even with a .50 BMG, that's completely beside the point

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.

[Kouralia]

He wouldn't have died even with a .50 BMG, that's completely beside the point

99% sure a finger shot with a Mosin is fatal

No, no it's not.

Eye-shots with SMLEs can even be non-lethal.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What is so reputable about the FN 303? Nothing of interest IMHO.. It's not very good at that "less-lethal" bit, search for yourself. In AmeriKKKa a woman (google says Victoria Snelgrove) got shot in the eye and died as a consequence, and according to Wikipedia's undoubtedly accurate and trusted *sigh* sources, in Luxembourg an RTL cameraman got shot with one in the finger, breaking it.

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, we can assume all cops in the world are stupid idiots who have no idea what they're doing (which is a viable assumption really) OR the thing has shit accuracy. Training (if not, at least common sense) should tell you NOT to hit someone in the eye, or anywhere in the head region for that matter, regardless of the size of the "LESS LETHAL" sticker and NOT to hit someone in the hand (darned RTL cameramen! it surely must have been a prop camera actually containing a flamethrower or RPG!) , especially not in the back of the hand (which is probably what happened unless, even worse, the policeman hit a cameraman who wasn't even facing him, or was putting his hands up or protecting himself with them), because obviously there's very little fat or muscle there, only relatively fragile bone.

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.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

He wouldn't have died even with a .50 BMG, that's completely beside the point

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.

Poor wording on my part, I was referring to accuracy, mainly.

[Sevvania]

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.

[Kouralia]

He wouldn't have died even with a .50 BMG, that's completely beside the point

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.