Is that better?Ikarti wrote:
lame. try again.Darth_Fleder wrote:
Again, that's pretty funny coming from you Ikarti.Ikarti wrote:
Bet you came from the shallow end of the gene pool.
www.IKARTI.com
Poll
Should using .50 Caliber weapons against humans be illegal
| Yes | 21% | 21% - 81 | ||||
| No | 78% | 78% - 296 | ||||
| Total: 377 | ||||||
yawn. you're down to name calling. it was much more entertaining when you were attempting to defend murderers.Darth_Fleder wrote:
Is that better?Ikarti wrote:
lame. try again.
ur dead either way
lol...what is going on here....didn't I just ask everyone to keep a level head and refrain from using insults to back up your so-called arguments ?
This topic wasn't suited much for a serious discussion anyway, but if this continues, the thread will be closed eventually. Last warning.
This topic wasn't suited much for a serious discussion anyway, but if this continues, the thread will be closed eventually. Last warning.
My unit was manning a gate with 5 soldiers in Ramadi. At the gate were a SAW, Mk19, and three m-16s. A lone insurgent, probably on drugs, attacked the gate with a rifle and a bunch of greneades. He was hit at least 18 times by the M-16s (the Mk 19 didn't have a safe shot, so it didn't fire) and he kept coming. In the end he wounded two of our guys with grenades and looked like swiss cheese when he was done. A .50 at the gate would have been a safe alternative to the Mk-19, and would have diffused the situation much more quickly, and probably without any American casualties.thanks_champ wrote:
I think people are missing the big picture. The goal should be non lethal munitions, that still have stopping power.
As an MP in Iraq, I carried several types of non-lethal munitions. I can assure you that if a 5.56 slug to the torso didn't stop this guy, there's no way any less-than-lethal round would have done so.
You also said, IIRC, 'American troops deserve every IED they get.'Ikarti wrote:
Hey, they signed up for it. They knew damn well what the military does, it doesn't matter who they get to kill. They seem to be having a blast over there, no pun intended.
Simple fact here is that your views are not consistent with facts, and they are not even consistent with any values you profess to hold. If you truly valued life, you would value the lives of troops as well. Instead, you hate troops, because you hate the policies of which they are required to operate in support. Saying, 'they know what they are signing up for,' holds no water: Troops don't make policy. For you to say they should be responsible for the policy is tantamount to saying you don't believe we should have an Army at all.
Is that what you actually believe?
I see no problem with using the .50 cal for militarty purposes. In law enforcement the only reason I would say they shouldn't use it, is because it is potentially dangerous to innocent civilians. This thing has got to produce alot of shrapnal so i say stick with the smaller caliburs to keep everyone else safe. I don't think there should be any consideration for the target or how humane it is, why waste time on that discussion. I am still not sure we should keep it out of the hands of law enforcement because they will decide what calibur they need in certain situations. I agree we should be focused more on stopping power to prevent innocent ppl from getting injured or killed. Ofcourse in the military killing power is what we want , so keep the .50 cal. What i am trying to say is the least concern should be put on those we mean to use it on, especially when it comes to military use.
Last edited by Deathscope (2006-06-20 10:52:21)
on topic, I don't think .50 cal's are very suited for law enforcement purposes. I couldn't even imagine a situation where such a weapon would come in handy, maybe with the exception of single shot .50 cal sniper rifles.
.50 cal machine guns are used for suppression fire or against attacking infantry, maybe against light vehicles. Although it is probably true that they hold very high stopping power.
During conventional military operations, I have always believed that the troops should be allowed to use whatever weapon they want if it helps them achieve their targets while limiting own losses. If that's a .50 cal, then so be it. When you are dead, then that's it, and I don't think it the caliber matters much...
.50 cal machine guns are used for suppression fire or against attacking infantry, maybe against light vehicles. Although it is probably true that they hold very high stopping power.
During conventional military operations, I have always believed that the troops should be allowed to use whatever weapon they want if it helps them achieve their targets while limiting own losses. If that's a .50 cal, then so be it. When you are dead, then that's it, and I don't think it the caliber matters much...
Schuss, agreed
ok then, explainghettoperson wrote:
Yes, but your quite obviously a fuckwit who doesn't understand anything about the banning of knives in the UKSmitty5613 wrote:
i live in cali and some people out here are cra-z and want to ban all weapons... soon we will be as bad as england (where they are trying to ban steak-knives cuz the losers there got all tha guns banned and are bored)yerded wrote:
American "authorities", especially in California, want to ban 50 cal weapons because their behavior is such that they know they should get whacked, and 50 calibre weapons defeat all body armor.
I have no idea why you neg'd me asshole (Smitty) but I can assure you that I do not give negative karma in this particular forum, I merely called you a fuckwit.
Yeah, I was referring to moving towards non-lethal, using yet to be developed weaponry (something that doesn't necessarily have to use bullets). You're right though, at the moment there is no real non-lethal alternative with the same stopping power.whittsend wrote:
My unit was manning a gate with 5 soldiers in Ramadi. At the gate were a SAW, Mk19, and three m-16s. A lone insurgent, probably on drugs, attacked the gate with a rifle and a bunch of greneades. He was hit at least 18 times by the M-16s (the Mk 19 didn't have a safe shot, so it didn't fire) and he kept coming. In the end he wounded two of our guys with grenades and looked like swiss cheese when he was done. A .50 at the gate would have been a safe alternative to the Mk-19, and would have diffused the situation much more quickly, and probably without any American casualties.thanks_champ wrote:
I think people are missing the big picture. The goal should be non lethal munitions, that still have stopping power.
As an MP in Iraq, I carried several types of non-lethal munitions. I can assure you that if a 5.56 slug to the torso didn't stop this guy, there's no way any less-than-lethal round would have done so.
OK, nice point.Cactusfist wrote:
Do people seriously think that these bullets go through any sort of armour? ITS JUST A BULLET. Theres an article on Barrett's homepage correcting some misconceptions, .50cal is just a bullet. It makes little to no difference the bullet size, 1 shot can kill even with a 6mm. If you want the .50cal to be banned in war just ban war.
edit: By armour i mean ceramic kind of stuff you find on armoured transports etc. Not kevlar.
Ban WAR.
no keep war rageing this way the human race advances, survival of the fittest and all that stuff
Wow... This is ridiculous. It's just freakin common sense!!! Buddy, what kind of retard is gonna fire an AT missile at an infantry dude who has an AK when there's a vehicle mowing down your squad. That was a stupid response, he doesn't mean that AT missiles are meant to be fired at infantry. What he means is an AT missile is meant to be fired at the thing it will cause the most damage to...
Like if you have a tank and two guys with AK47s, then you would fire it at the tank. But if you have ONE guy with an AK47 and no other people around, then you shoot him. Wtf are you going to say? "Hold on buddy, lemme go get my knife so we can have a knife fight and make it fair, NO BUNNY HOPPING!" The guy has an AK47, You have an AT Missile, you have a sidearm with you, and your in the open, by the time you put your finger on the hand gun, you'll be dead because the enemy would've unloaded a clip on you by then. I don't see why anyone would prefer to kill the enemy with an M16 when you have the 50 cal right next to you. Unless your trying to increase your KD/R with assault rifles. Don't be ridiculous, when you see a guy with an AK47, your not gonna wait to switch weapons, your gonna mow his ass down. And all this BS about weapons being too harsh in war. What a load of shit, how bout the enemy? They are jihad jeeping 24/7. And what about a guy in a tank who gets bombed by an A-10. I think 2000 pounds of bombs from an A-10? But your right, a 50 cal shot hurts a lot more than 2,000 pounds of bombs dropped on you. </Sarcasm>
Like if you have a tank and two guys with AK47s, then you would fire it at the tank. But if you have ONE guy with an AK47 and no other people around, then you shoot him. Wtf are you going to say? "Hold on buddy, lemme go get my knife so we can have a knife fight and make it fair, NO BUNNY HOPPING!" The guy has an AK47, You have an AT Missile, you have a sidearm with you, and your in the open, by the time you put your finger on the hand gun, you'll be dead because the enemy would've unloaded a clip on you by then. I don't see why anyone would prefer to kill the enemy with an M16 when you have the 50 cal right next to you. Unless your trying to increase your KD/R with assault rifles. Don't be ridiculous, when you see a guy with an AK47, your not gonna wait to switch weapons, your gonna mow his ass down. And all this BS about weapons being too harsh in war. What a load of shit, how bout the enemy? They are jihad jeeping 24/7. And what about a guy in a tank who gets bombed by an A-10. I think 2000 pounds of bombs from an A-10? But your right, a 50 cal shot hurts a lot more than 2,000 pounds of bombs dropped on you. </Sarcasm>
the reason is you have little chance of living after a hit from a .50 .......by the same token a land mine will only blow your legs off but you liveRAIMIUS wrote:
Should using .50cal (12.7mm) weapons against humans be illegal? I have to wonder why it should be. While I would not want to be hit by a .50cal round, I would not want to be hit by a .30cal (7.62mm) round either. Why do some people find a moral difference here?
in "desert storm" the first one the BRITISH SAS hunted and distroyed S.C.U.D misiles with a recon version of the .50 sniper rifle mutch like the .05 in BF2 .. .if spoted and chased do you think they ran coz the "rules of war " forbid them to shoot at ppl with a .05 sniper rifle ..........or do you think they splaterd them with it ??
you also cant use a anti tank gun on ppl for the same reason :p
rule,s of war !
oi reff that bast*** just hit me in the chest with a anti tank round i want him taken off the field untill next battle!
as if ..........
i shot a sniper rifle in the army .50
clear easy shot is 1000meters it blows your head of.
piont is nobody should be shooting at each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
clear easy shot is 1000meters it blows your head of.
piont is nobody should be shooting at each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i disagree my friend i think some times in history war is the only way outrolluf69 wrote:
i shot a sniper rifle in the army .50
clear easy shot is 1000meters it blows your head of.
piont is nobody should be shooting at each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
im living in the UK your dutch .........we allmost both ended up speeking german !
think about it
some things are worth fighting for american independace ? i bet most ppl in the usa would agree with that war as daft as it seems to us .......history tells us looking back is that war or this war was a good think or a bad think its very hard to tell at the time
í agree whit that.
i've bin a pro soldier(worked whit the brits alot!)
but in a ideal world we would only be shooting at each other in games wouldnt we?
i've bin a pro soldier(worked whit the brits alot!)
but in a ideal world we would only be shooting at each other in games wouldnt we?
Not illegal in war...
nothing is illegal in war igeus as long as you win.
qoute from jullius ceasar:history is on the side of the winner
qoute from jullius ceasar:history is on the side of the winner
the .50 cal snipers arent just about blowing holes in people(well yes they are) but snipers choose them(usually spec ops) For their 2 mile range. The M24 has an accurate range of like 1000 yards but the .50 has one of like 1 mile... I think... correct me if i m wrong.
For those of you who are saying "Who cares the hole it makes, its just an issue for those who have to clean it up, the dead guy doesnt care" Does this mean that the mangling and mutilation of dead bodies is ok? Cause you gotta remember this shit goes both ways. Dont care about shredding the body of your dead enemies? Ok, but dont be surprised and shocked when they drag your dead through the streets and burn the bodies publicly. If you say that alls fair in war, then it would be perfectly acceptable for Haj to napalm a US military base? After all, alls fair. (Not saying its likely they'll napalm, but just making a point. If you dont even try for decency in warfare then dont expect your opponent to.)
DAm its a war. Mutilation isnt ok but still.
they could fucking try....LOLKibbick wrote:
For those of you who are saying "Who cares the hole it makes, its just an issue for those who have to clean it up, the dead guy doesnt care" Does this mean that the mangling and mutilation of dead bodies is ok? Cause you gotta remember this shit goes both ways. Dont care about shredding the body of your dead enemies? Ok, but dont be surprised and shocked when they drag your dead through the streets and burn the bodies publicly. If you say that alls fair in war, then it would be perfectly acceptable for Haj to napalm a US military base? After all, alls fair. (Not saying its likely they'll napalm, but just making a point. If you dont even try for decency in warfare then dont expect your opponent to.)
the napalm that is
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-06-27 19:27:02)
should using any weapons aganist another human be illegal...?