Announcement

Collapse

Psychology 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Tweb's couch. Please join us in discussing the joys of the human psyche. Watch in wonderment as the Tweb crowd has violent mood swings. help us understand what makes us tick.

Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.
See more
See less

Roadside Memorials

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by eider View Post

    Masses of waffle.
    Armchair waffle.
    I'm not the one equivocating here, you have been doing that and attributing positions to me that I do not hold.

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    You cited them as a source, but they did not cite their sources for the claim they made. This means they did not provide a citation for their claim. They didn't even name the engineer in question. That is very shoddy work for a paper like that from a government institution.



    You have a bad habit of attributing claims to me I did not make. I never said it couldn't be lethal at that range, just that most of its momentum has been lost by then and that reduces the capacity for lethality drastically. That doesn't remove the possibility of injury. They are sharp, unlike shotgun slugs, so they can do more damage at a lower momentum than slugs. Firing one within its effective range on the other hand is going to be much more lethal and cause worse injuries than one shot at max range. Any object of a sufficient size dropped from high enough can cause damage to a person but that doesn't equate to being highly lethal. You keep trying to equate the danger of a shot within effective range to those outside it.

    Oh, and dropping a crossbow bolt from the first floor would just be dropping it on the ground. I'm pretty sure you meant the second floor. That could still hurt due to crossbow bolts being sharp, but it would likely cause some minor cuts in most cases. Even dropping it from the second floor wouldn't be likely to cause much of an injury but it would still be capable of hurting someone.



    I am using my intelligence. You need to use better reading comprehension and logic than you have been exhibiting.

    *This is assuming it maintained enough momentum to reach an artery at that distance.
    Masses of waffle.
    Armchair waffle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    What we call the first floor the Brits refer to as the ground floor. For them the first floor is what we call the second floor.
    Kinda reminds me of hard drives - the first one is Drive 0, and the second one is Drive 1. (in the old days)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Yeah, like many things it is often worse to yank it out than to leave it in and go to the emergency room.
    There was a medical reality-TV episode my wife was watching a couple years ago that stuck with me. A guy walked into the ER and had a nail in his chest from a nail gun accident. The nurse noticed the nail was pulsating, and all heck broke loose. Although the guy was sitting on the gurney and chatting away, seemingly not terribly concerned and not much blood (that I noticed), the nail apparently lodged in his heart - and could conceivably pop out without warning. I never did see the outcome of that one, although I was told he survived.

    And then there was Steve Irwin's accident.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    There is another factor to consider... mass. An arrow or crossbow bolt tends to weigh a good deal more than most bullets and something weighing (just making up numbers for illustrative purposes) a pound that hits you at 20 mph will do more damage than something weighing an ounce hitting you at 20 mph.
    True but any projectile will lose momentum and therefore have a weaker impact the further it travels. Still, the increased weight increases the amount of impact and thus the damage when hit is higher.

    Btw, basically grabbing an arrow by the shaft and yanking it out is not a good way to remove it. They tended to secure the arrowhead with sinew[1] which holds it fast -- until it gets wet. And it gets soaked with blood so when you yank on the shaft it tends to leave the arrowhead in the wound and now requires someone digging into the wound to extract it.





    1. I should note that I'm specifically referring to arrows used by various Native Americans
    Yeah, like many things it is often worse to yank it out than to leave it in and go to the emergency room.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post


    It is just basic ballistic physics that less momentum means less impact and less damage.
    There is another factor to consider... mass. An arrow or crossbow bolt tends to weigh a good deal more than most bullets and something weighing (just making up numbers for illustrative purposes) a pound that hits you at 20 mph will do more damage than something weighing an ounce hitting you at 20 mph.

    Btw, basically grabbing an arrow by the shaft and yanking it out is not a good way to remove it. They tended to secure the arrowhead with sinew[1] which holds it fast -- until it gets wet. And it gets soaked with blood so when you yank on the shaft it tends to leave the arrowhead in the wound and now requires someone digging into the wound to extract it.





    1. I should note that I'm specifically referring to arrows used by various Native Americans

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I think various accounts of soldiers and cowboys being struck by a dozen arrows and surviving with little or no permanent damage speaks volumes about the effectiveness of arrows shot from beyond effective range. As you said, they can still be lethal if they hit the right spot or cause an infection, but other than that...

    It is just basic ballistic physics that less momentum means less impact and less damage.

    What we call the first floor the Brits refer to as the ground floor. For them the first floor is what we call the second floor.
    I did not know that one. I will retract my previous statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    You cited them as a source, but they did not cite their sources for the claim they made. This means they did not provide a citation for their claim. They didn't even name the engineer in question. That is very shoddy work for a paper like that from a government institution.



    You have a bad habit of attributing claims to me I did not make. I never said it couldn't be lethal at that range, just that most of its momentum has been lost by then and that reduces the capacity for lethality drastically. That doesn't remove the possibility of injury. They are sharp, unlike shotgun slugs, so they can do more damage at a lower momentum than slugs. Firing one within its effective range on the other hand is going to be much more lethal and cause worse injuries than one shot at max range. Any object of a sufficient size dropped from high enough can cause damage to a person but that doesn't equate to being highly lethal. You keep trying to equate the danger of a shot within effective range to those outside it.

    Oh, and dropping a crossbow bolt from the first floor would just be dropping it on the ground. I'm pretty sure you meant the second floor. That could still hurt due to crossbow bolts being sharp, but it would likely cause some minor cuts in most cases. Even dropping it from the second floor wouldn't be likely to cause much of an injury but it would still be capable of hurting someone.



    I am using my intelligence. You need to use better reading comprehension and logic than you have been exhibiting.

    *This is assuming it maintained enough momentum to reach an artery at that distance.
    I think various accounts of soldiers and cowboys being struck by a dozen arrows and surviving with little or no permanent damage speaks volumes about the effectiveness of arrows shot from beyond effective range. As you said, they can still be lethal if they hit the right spot or cause an infection, but other than that...


    What we call the first floor the Brits refer to as the ground floor. For them the first floor is what we call the second floor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by eider View Post

    The document in itself is a 'citation'.
    You cited them as a source, but they did not cite their sources for the claim they made. This means they did not provide a citation for their claim. They didn't even name the engineer in question. That is very shoddy work for a paper like that from a government institution.

    And if you still think that a crossbow bolt cannot be lethal at maximum range then you really have lost the plot.
    If a crossbow bolt was just dropped from a first floor onto a person below the injury could be very serious. !!!!!
    You have a bad habit of attributing claims to me I did not make. I never said it couldn't be lethal at that range, just that most of its momentum has been lost by then and that reduces the capacity for lethality drastically. That doesn't remove the possibility of injury. They are sharp, unlike shotgun slugs, so they can do more damage at a lower momentum than slugs. Firing one within its effective range on the other hand is going to be much more lethal and cause worse injuries than one shot at max range. Any object of a sufficient size dropped from high enough can cause damage to a person but that doesn't equate to being highly lethal. You keep trying to equate the danger of a shot within effective range to those outside it.

    Oh, and dropping a crossbow bolt from the first floor would just be dropping it on the ground. I'm pretty sure you meant the second floor. That could still hurt due to crossbow bolts being sharp, but it would likely cause some minor cuts in most cases. Even dropping it from the second floor wouldn't be likely to cause much of an injury but it would still be capable of hurting someone.

    Use your intelligence about this.
    I am using my intelligence. You need to use better reading comprehension and logic than you have been exhibiting.

    *This is assuming it maintained enough momentum to reach an artery at that distance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    IMHBAO they are nearly ideal for home defense.
    For a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is pyschological.
    I have had hell's angels types go toe to toe with me against my .357, but when somebody racks a shotgun, they decide they might need to rethink their strategy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    Ehhhh .... maybe if you live alone. What if you have family standing nearby or on the other side of the drywall? Shotguns are rather indiscriminate. I think a handgun would work much better.
    One of the powerful benefits of a shotgun often doesn't even require you to fire it. Just "racking it" to put a shell into the chamber puts the fear of God in many people.
    I have noted before that our Ithaca riot shotguns actually had a bypass lever near the safety that allows the user to "rack it" WITHOUT putting a round in the chamber purely for psychological effect.
    Besides that, if the officer had to lay the shotgun down to handcuff the perp, the shotgun is lying there without a round in the chamber, should somebody get nutty and decide to use it against the officer.

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    Pot, meet kettle. Looking at a large variety of sources isn't exactly ignorant to begin with. Disagreeing with your assertions isn't ignorance either, especially given the poor level of evidence you have provided thus far.



    I never denied that arrows can have a fairly long range and still be dangerous. However, the further the range the more loss of momentum and the less dangerous they become. Even a 200 lbs. draw weight crossbow is going to have little impact at its max range of about 500 yards. Depending on the bolt it could still hurt, but lethality is usually lost well before then. Even your most recent example of the Department of Industry and Commerce in Winnipeg Manitoba had to admit that the shot they used as an example of getting hit at long range would have had to hit the man in the eye to kill him, if it even did that. He got hurt, and it was an example of irresponsible gun owners. However, they simply don't give any citations for their claim of a shotgun reaching 1,400 yards with heavy goose shot ammo. There is a reason shotguns are required to hunt in various areas because they have such a low effective range. If someone far outside that range manages to get hit by a stray shot it isn't likely to do much if any damage.
    The document in itself is a 'citation'.
    And if you still think that a crossbow bolt cannot be lethal at maximum range then you really have lost the plot.
    If a crossbow bolt was just dropped from a first floor onto a person below the injury could be very serious. !!!!!

    Use your intelligence about this.

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    You use your IQ to make tea? You have to solve a daily routine every day? Please explain how that works.
    Intelligence works all the time, never stops working.
    You don't switch it on-off as required.

    Every foot-fall is a problem for the brain, but this only becomes apparent when one starts to trip.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by eider View Post

    Even now you are in ignorant denial.
    Pot, meet kettle. Looking at a large variety of sources isn't exactly ignorant to begin with. Disagreeing with your assertions isn't ignorance either, especially given the poor level of evidence you have provided thus far.

    And I seriously hope that you never get hit by an arrow at long range....... How incredibly dense.
    I never denied that arrows can have a fairly long range and still be dangerous. However, the further the range the more loss of momentum and the less dangerous they become. Even a 200 lbs. draw weight crossbow is going to have little impact at its max range of about 500 yards. Depending on the bolt it could still hurt, but lethality is usually lost well before then. Even your most recent example of the Department of Industry and Commerce in Winnipeg Manitoba had to admit that the shot they used as an example of getting hit at long range would have had to hit the man in the eye to kill him, if it even did that. He got hurt, and it was an example of irresponsible gun owners. However, they simply don't give any citations for their claim of a shotgun reaching 1,400 yards with heavy goose shot ammo. There is a reason shotguns are required to hunt in various areas because they have such a low effective range. If someone far outside that range manages to get hit by a stray shot it isn't likely to do much if any damage.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    Multi-family units? You mean like apartment buildings? I meant in a detached single-family house. I could punch or kick through most inner walls, so I would assume shotgun pellets would penetrate them, too.

    Maybe it's the type of intrusion we are envisioning. I'm thinking about a home-invasion robbery, where there is mix of intruders and family members all within a small space. Or a family member might be locked in a bedroom. I'm not envisioning a teenage daughter alone being confronted by a single intruder.
    Apartments, quadplexes, duplexes, whatever.

    That teenage daughter could stop as many intruders as she has shells chambered without too much difficulty as long as she found a place that limited avenues of approach to her.

    Even with a home invasion, one that is met with a shotgun blast or two will almost assuredly result in an aborted attempt.

    The problem with that is of course how close/available are you to the shotgun -- or any gun for that matter. I doubt there are many people who walk around armed in there own home, although having something stashed in virtually every room is of course possible (but not viable if children are normally present).

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X