Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(06-24-2020, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Fredtoast: Wrote:High powered rifle rounds are obviously much more lethal than handguns, but because of the lack of major organs in your legs you are much less likely to die from a would to the leg instead of the head or body.  A SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT PROVES THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED.

This is a bold faced lie. The study posted used only pistol rounds, which you finally agreed, once you looked foolish for several posts, are far more lethal. 
Seeing as you’ve proven you know nothing about firearms no one should care what you have to say in the subject.

Fred has NOT proven he knows nothing about firearms. And you have not proven that either, or that he looks foolish.  You've just claimed it and then performed a verbal endzone dance.

(06-25-2020, 10:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I never said anything about pistols or rifles.  All I said was that s scientific study has been posted that shows gunshots to limbs are not as deadly as gunshot wounds to the torso.

And you have NOTHING to prove it is any different with rifles.  You just keep panting about how smart you are.  All I am asking is for the source of your knowledge.  You had to learn it somewhere, right?  

Just to be clear, we all agree rifles are more deadly than handguns.  What I want to see is the source of your claim that wounds to the leg are only "slightly less lethal" than shots to the torso.

Once these points are made, then it won't do to dodge them by claiming no one should care what Fred has to say.

Granting, as Fred does, that rifles are more deadly than handguns, what reason is there to believe leg shots with a rifle are only "slightly" less lethal?  Is this based on some data set you are familiar with? Have you witnessed lots of leg vs center mass shots with rifles? Why shouldn't ratio of lethality between body and leg shots from rifles remain roughly similar to that of handguns, even as overall lethality increases?  We are going from a 1-to-84 ratio to what, 4-to-81? 10-to-75? 41-to-44?

Until we get that, then going forward we'll have to assume that "slightly less" is just a guess on your part, dressed by mention of rifle calibers you suppose no one else has heard of to show how much you know.

And a guess to fog the real issue here, namely police ROE, how police, using handguns, really are or or not constrained.