(06-24-2020, 11:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well she'd hate me because half of it I would dismiss as not art.  My niece who is now a nurse but graduated from the Cincinnati Art Academy argue about it all the time, although she pretty much dismisses me now.  But there is a Rothco that sold for like $75million.  It's a tall painting like 6 feet, and it's three stacked rectangles each in a different color.  Just Wtf?  Now he's done other stuff I would consider art, but this was just a pretty wall hanging.

(06-24-2020, 01:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: People pay hundreds of dollars for people to scribble their name on things. We attach value to things for being one of a few finite pieces of a person. The art market is a lot more lucrative than the autograph market, but original art is also a lot more limited in supply.

Rothko is not for me, but I've read some arguments about his value that make sense.

(06-24-2020, 04:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I have never used the IDF as a paragon of constraint. However could you get there when I make a point IDF soldiers and their command know full well they can hit people behind their initial targets? They use lethal weapons for non-lethal purposes. They are mentioned as evidence that your "aim-for-body-mass" mantra is simply not universal, and to introduce an external point of ROE comparison.

Quote:You claim superior knowledge here, and I guess the descriptions of what happens when bullets strike extremities are supposed to establish that. But you really had no particular reason to believe that I, or the majority of people on this MB, don't already know about arteries and bone splinters etc. And your guess about the conditions under which IDF soldiers actually shoot civilians indicates a willingness to claim more than you really "know" and shape it to your thesis.

I'm surprised you're now going to double down on your claim leg wounds are only "slightly" less lethal, further asserting that I have offered nothing of substance to suggest that shots to the legs, which hold no vital organs and receive tourniquets easily, are rather less likely to be lethal than shots to the torso--body mass--which houses the heart, liver lungs, spine and some very large veins and arteries, none easily accessible to pressure bandages and tourniquets. I'd say "zero expertise" is required to understand where lethal wounds are more likely to occur.

Data should help us sort this out, so here's a paragraph from a 2018 study of in the Journal of the American Medical Association on the relation of lethality and caliber size, which also indicates lethality in relation to wound location.

The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6324289/#zoi180063r3.

The distributions of wound locations differed in the expected way. For individuals with a single wound, 84 of 134 (62.7%) were peripheral (legs, arms, or shoulders) for nonfatal cases, compared with only 1 of 64 (1.6%) for fatal cases. For individuals with multiple wounds, the most serious wound was peripheral in 18 of 50 nonfatal shootings (36.0%) compared with 1 of 119 fatal shootings (0.8%). (The ranking used to determine seriousness was based only on location, with head and neck most serious; then chest, back, and abdomen; then arms, shoulders, and legs.

To emphasize--in a sample of 134 single-wound, non-fatal shootings, a rather large proportion (62.7%) were peripheral (arms, shoulders, legs). In 64 cases of fatal wounding with one shot, it appears only one was the result of peripheral wounding.   So in this total sample of 198 single-wound shootings, only one was fatal AND peripheral.  What should one conclude from the high rate of survival of peripheral wounds? Or about the "slightly less" lethality of leg shots?  Could you argue that 1 is only "slightly" less than 84?  

This is why the military of every nation is very concerned about armor protection for the head and body, much less so legs and arms, as wounds there are more generally treatable (even on the battlefield) and survivable.

(06-24-2020, 08:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Doesn't matter if he fired the shot in commission of a crime.  Just like if you accidently kill someone during a bank robbery that is first degree murder

Quote:Also, when you are a trained police officer and you know the taser he is firing is useless you tend to go to jail for shooting an unarmed person in the back.

(06-24-2020, 08:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote:  

But to give SSF credit he does have "superior knowledge" of how to affect smug confidence when he doesn't really knopw what he is talking aboui.

(06-24-2020, 10:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Dill, Dill, Dill....people who "know" don't need data or ANYTHING that disagrees with their own perceptions.

(06-24-2020, 01:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was writing the other day about not talking about things you don't know about.  If you have an opinion and no knowledge then your best bet is to just say nothing beyond what your opinion is if someone is having a conversation about it.

That's me with art.

I don't know much about it so I don't criticize much of it.  I'll have a conversation about "what is art" and "what is offensive" but it's more just for the conversation than because I can defend art or anything.

(06-24-2020, 01:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is another one of those frustrations my wife has with me, and it is probably an indication of being slightly neurologically divergent. I have a very hard time describing why I like something. I either like it or I don't. My wife can go on and on about the traits of something that explain her opinions of it. I just kind of shrug and go "it looks nice."

I also can't describe faces. At all. Were I a witness or a victim of a crime, there is no chance a sketch artist would ever be able to work with me. I just can't communicate that sort of thing.

(06-24-2020, 05:14 AM)Dill Wrote: So I raise the point that police in the UK frequently neutralize knife and pipe wielding criminals without shooting/killing them. Without disputing the truth of this point, you just say I have "little in my arsenal,"

and counter with mere impressions of UK policing--but whence came those impressions?

I know there are plenty of internet memes claiming that "violent crime is soaring in the UK" etc.,
but perhaps you could back your impressions with some credible sources that actually establish "UK policing is tragically comic" and "dying"?

That done we can get back to the ROE comparison the UK affords.

(06-24-2020, 02:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The vests that UK police wear are stab vests designed to stop knives.
The vests that US police wear are ballistic vests designed to stop bullets.

One isn't good for the other. 

(06-24-2020, 02:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The vests that UK police wear are stab vests designed to stop knives.
The vests that US police wear are ballistic vests designed to stop bullets.

One isn't good for the other. 

(06-24-2020, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Outstanding, thank you for providing a source, albeit extremely limited ins cope, to try and prove your point.  However, I must again claim superior knowledge.  Your study is almost exclusively on hand gun rounds.  Literally the only rifle round in the study, a 7.62x39mm typically fired from an AK platform, caused a fatal wound.  As your IDF buddies are all firing rifle rounds, likely 5.56mm NATO (btw a higher velocity round than 7.62x39 which will cause a larger stretch cavity) your study is useless in evaluating their tactics.  Unless you want to use the only rifle round in the study, you know the one that caused a fatality.  Appreciate the self own on your part.

(06-24-2020, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Once again you "claim superior knowledge" without anything to back it up.  

Where was the fatal wound from the AK-47?  You have no idea.  Therefor you have no point.

Quote:Why not just post the study you used to gain your "superior knowledge".  That would be the best way to settle this.

Quote:Oh wait, never mind, I know exactly why you won't post any link from any study you used to gain "superior knowledge".  

(06-24-2020, 05:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred, you've got to be trolling, because I know you know how to read.  I mentioned the round, 7.62x39mm, a rifle round (and the only rifle round in the study) that is typically fired from an AK platform rifle.  Regardless of what weapon discharges the round the 7.62x39mm round is a rifle round.  Every other round mentioned in that study is a handgun round.  Rifle rounds are exponentially more lethal than handgun rounds.  Seriously, you guys trying to win a firearms related argument with me is laughable.  You don't even know what you don't know.




That rifle rounds are more lethal than handgun rounds?  A knowledge of basic physics (research E=MC2), would tell you that a heavier bullet travelling at faster speeds is more lethal.  However, and try and keep up here because this can be confusing for some, as velocity is squared the faster a projectile is traveling exponentially increases its lethality.  This is why a 55 grain .223 Remington round is far more lethal than almost any handgun round.  A fast hand gun round will reach around 1,200-1,300 FPS,  this is the higher end of a hand gun round velocity.  A .223 Remington round will be around 3,000 FPS from a standard 16" barrel.  I feel compelled to point this out because you seem confused on this subject, but 3,000 is a much larger number than 1,200, especially when you are subsequently squaring this number to calculate energy.  Barrel length affects this as well, but I don't want to confuse you further.  Also, a simple google search will give you this;

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/.

Interestingly enough the first round they mention is 7.62x39mm rifle round, in this case fired from a SKS rifle.


Not a problem Fred, let me know when you want me to post a link about the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.  You and your buddies are wholly ignorant on this subject, act accordingly.  Oh wait, that's exactly what you're doing.

(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll further add that hitting someone in the thigh with a high velocity rifle round is very close to as lethal as shooting them in the torso.


only slightly less lethal,

(06-24-2020, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure why you posted this.  Here is your claim that is false.



And obviously you have nothing to back that up.

Thanks for playing.

Next time try to keep track of what we are actually discussing.  We were not talking about rifles being more deadly than handguns.  We were talking about wounds to the leg not being as fatal as wounds to the main body.

Next

(06-24-2020, 02:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The vests that UK police wear are stab vests designed to stop knives.
The vests that US police wear are ballistic vests designed to stop bullets.

One isn't good for the other. 

(06-24-2020, 03:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Plus if we are going to make police abide by the same rules as citizens, Ill say if someone pulls a knife or other dangerous weapon and I’m armed, I’m shooting them, and it will be justified.

(06-24-2020, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I explained, in great detail, why shooting the thigh is only slightly less lethal than aiming center mass. 

(06-24-2020, 06:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: And police here have to deal with people who finds guns easy to obtain both legally and illegally which doesn't seem to be such a problem in other countries.

(06-24-2020, 07:29 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Welcome to the 3rd largest landmass country in the world, which also has a decentralized government that is largely based around personal freedoms, and as a kicker has a 2,000 mile border with a country that is essentially run by cartels.