The Tavern

so i'm in a facebook conversation about the use of lethal force by police that has devolved to the point where my interlocutor is claiming that a rock is exactly as lethal as a gun and i really wish i could just fsim it and show him the results

But you can't fsim a gun either...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

Well, I hope you aren't arguing that police should "shoot to wound" or anything like that.

You should shot your professor under the excuse you ran out of stones.

Sar wrote:Well, I hope you aren't arguing that police should "shoot to wound" or anything like that.

That's not the direction we were coming at it from. But I'm curious, why is that a bad thing to argue?

Well, I've read on it a bit and it's a combination of precise shooting in a close combat situation being pretty much impossible, contrary to what action movies and games show - trained officers miss something like 50% or more shots in close combat, and gun "damage" being not reliable - people survived shots to the head, but damage a major artery on a limb and a death can follow easily (but not necessarily before the target is stopped from attacking/shooting the shooter).

Hell, even a lot of "non-lethal" methods can kill. Tasers, rubber bullets etc.

tedric wrote:
Sar wrote:Well, I hope you aren't arguing that police should "shoot to wound" or anything like that.

That's not the direction we were coming at it from. But I'm curious, why is that a bad thing to argue?

No idea if this is what Sar was thinking, but intentionally aiming for a limb shot actually puts everyone but the hostile target at greater risk. Greater chance of return fire, greater chance of stray bullets from police hitting bystanders because you are aiming for something other than center mass.

The problem with bad shootings (which is a real problem, obviously!) is that the people being shot in such cases did not actually present a danger that merits being shot at, and that would remain true even if the police "shot to wound."

EDIT: Also, what Sar said.

Well taking into account the definition of lethal, then yes, a rock is just as lethal as a gun. A thrown rock or gun at someone can be lethal if thrown properly.

You could always counter argue that a bullet will always be more likely to end a life when it rips through a persons internals.

Most debates demand a strong understanding of vocabulary.

TonberryJam wrote:Well taking into account the definition of lethal, then yes, a rock is just as lethal as a gun. A thrown rock or gun at someone can be lethal if thrown properly.

You could always counter argue that a bullet will always be more likely to end a life when it rips through a persons internals.

Most debates demand a strong understanding of vocabulary.

Well, that depends on the context and formalness with which you use the word lethal. When discussing someone who has already been killed there is no "more" or "less" there are no degrees of dead, and "something that has killed someone" is the technical definition of lethal.

However, that context doesn't apply to things generally, you can't declare that thrown rocks or gun shots are "lethal" in a strict sense because the outcome is uncertain.

Therefore if you say "gunshots are more lethal than thrown rocks" the only context in which it makes sense it to be talking about the likelihood of a fatality from one or the other, this is the sense in which most non pedantic English speakers would understand the phrase.

Indeed it is possible to declare that anything that anyone has ever died from is "lethal" by the same logic, however if you were to say "gunshots are as lethal as breathing" you would be intentionally misleading your audience with a technically true statement.

You awkwardly throw a +0 gun.

Sprucery wrote:But you can't fsim a gun either...

http://crawl.chaosforge.org/Sniper

What your facebook friend doesn't realize is that arguing on facebook is also exactly as lethal as throwing a rock.

If a gun and rock are equally lethal, than surely a nuke or sun sized meteor are also equally deadly right? I mean, get hit with a bullet, nuke, rock, or planet destroying meteor, and you die. It's all the same, right?

Now, I suppose that may be true for sufficiently silly definitions of deadly, but surely they are not equally dangerous, which seems like the more important thing here. Hell, a hand, foot, head, or even your ass can be deadly, if applied properly.

Also, what and into said. Police should be accountable, like everyone else.

Given that the ratio between rocks and guns is huge (even in North America), but the ratio between rock deaths and gun deaths is tiny (in the USA), it seems reasonable to conclude that guns are more lethal than rocks.

4Hooves2Appendages wrote:Given that the ratio between rocks and guns is huge (even in North America), but the ratio between rock deaths and gun deaths is tiny (in the USA), it seems reasonable to conclude that guns are more lethal than rocks.

no way josef everything is as lethal as everything else

learn to speak english next time

They are both equelly lethal in an absolute sense that you can kill somebody with either (or my mediocre English skills are trolling me, which is very possible).

But overall I reckon it would be much easier to kill somebody with a gun due to the higher stopping power and accuracy (like I think if you throw a rock with all your might at somebody's shoulder he is probably going to survive, but if you shoot him he's dead in 20 or something minutes). What a gotesque train of thought...

But why isn't anyone worried about those sun sized meteors? Or asses? Sure, it's not like a sun sized meteor has killed anyone on earth before, but it only takes one!

concept: gun that shoots rocks

4Hooves2Appendages wrote:Given that the ratio between rocks and guns is huge (even in North America), but the ratio between rock deaths and gun deaths is tiny (in the USA), it seems reasonable to conclude that guns are more lethal than rocks.

Rock deaths are so low because everybody has access to them, so nobody has the chance to throw rocks at rockless, helpless victims.

genericpseudonym wrote:
4Hooves2Appendages wrote:Given that the ratio between rocks and guns is huge (even in North America), but the ratio between rock deaths and gun deaths is tiny (in the USA), it seems reasonable to conclude that guns are more lethal than rocks.

Rock deaths are so low because everybody has access to them, so nobody has the chance to throw rocks at rockless, helpless victims.

That also explains the curiously low incidence of ass related murders.

dowan wrote:
genericpseudonym wrote:
4Hooves2Appendages wrote:Given that the ratio between rocks and guns is huge (even in North America), but the ratio between rock deaths and gun deaths is tiny (in the USA), it seems reasonable to conclude that guns are more lethal than rocks.

Rock deaths are so low because everybody has access to them, so nobody has the chance to throw rocks at rockless, helpless victims.

That also explains the curiously low incidence of ass related murders.

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-26398-Gweru+brothers+kill+man+in+donkey+row/news.aspx

Hey, I just said low, not nonexistent. Besides, that's the wrong kind of ass, not everyone has that kind, thus there are more murders related to it!

genericpseudonym wrote:
4Hooves2Appendages wrote:Given that the ratio between rocks and guns is huge (even in North America), but the ratio between rock deaths and gun deaths is tiny (in the USA), it seems reasonable to conclude that guns are more lethal than rocks.

Rock deaths are so low because everybody has access to them, so nobody has the chance to throw rocks at rockless, helpless victims.

so everyone should be able to own a gun, to help prevent murder by guns?

that was the joke

but then people would get bombs, and then tanks, and then bombtanks, and then nuclearbombtanks

which would be bad

we need to limit the civilian arms race

jwoodrward48ss wrote:which would be bad

says you

Well I'm not letting my neighbor drive his nuclearbombtank over and steal my canned food unopposed damn it! What if I'm shopping at my local convenience store, and a robber drives his nuclearbombtank in and demands my various valuables? I'll tell you what I'll do, I get in my nuclearbombtank Mk. 2 and blow his up!

Damn liberals trying to take away my weapons of mass destruction self defense tools!

The Tavern

average damage of a thrown stone

average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone

Re: average damage of a thrown stone