View Single Post
Old 2011-05-14, 11:48   Link #94
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 32
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
I am not going to take the double-insult of "technobabble" and "junk science" lying down when I am not spouting intelligent design, and where my idea lies somewhere between the region of science fiction and non-fiction with possibilities to be explored and story ideas to be exemplified.

I take my science seriously and I do my best to turn it into workable fiction basing it on the fundamentals of both theory and practical, as well as experience. If anyone has ideas, share. Any corrections that can be made, point out and provide proof. That is civility; not half-past-six "it is rubbish and cannot be done" replies without any technical backing which is a taunt to start a flame war.
Noted, but you don't need to lose your shirt over it.

Also, do note that he never said anything about things being rubbish and cannot be done, rather that from a storyline perspective, the more you try to explain the more the suspension disbelief falls apart, so just saying rule of cool and letting go works better sometimes.

Hell, I'll give an example: Modern Warfare Mission 3, where Soap, Price and Gaz break Nikolai out of captivity. The helicopter coming to extract them is a gray UH-60 Blackhawk in RAF markings, piloted by two pilots wearing uniforms worn by the Russian Spetsnaz and speaking American Accented English.

If you think about it too much, you ask questions like "Why are the RAF using Blackhawks when they use Merlins instead, why are they speaking American English, why are two Russian Spetsnaz flying an RAF chopper..."

See my point?

Back to the topic, Butei Law 9 is followed as a guideline. Any weapon that can kill can be used to injure, for example, security troops wielding shotguns often fire at the leg so the pellets will disable the person. Of course, there is a risk of blowing their leg off entirely; nonetheless if weapons are not to be used to kill, why wield them?

Paraphrasing Massad Ayoub, police officers are issued weapons to protect themselves, but killing is not the first resort; lethal weapons are intended to intimidate the suspect into surrendering, and for self defense, or to protect civillians.

The service weapon is a weapon of protection. That is the intention behind a police weapon. It contrasts with a military weapon, which is intended to kill the enemy. The usage depends on the intent of the user.

Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
No offense meant, but even Sousuke Sagara had more common sense than that, for he would use rubber rounds. And I am talking about the motherfucking Sousuke.
And tear gas, pepper spray, stun guns and tasers.

... goddamnit I knew I'd forgotten more kit!

But yes, rubber rounds are a viable choice of ammunition... though from what I've seen the kids are using ball. Note the Paras in Northern Ireland, who were issued rubber rounds, and apparently so are Air Marshalls in the US.

Also, from observations and reading of SWAT tactics, I note that patrol cars with shotguns would tend to have buckshot, but in SWAT usage shotguns are loaded with breaching rounds to breach doors, as an alternative to battering rams. And then there's also nonlethal beanbag rounds for shotguns, as well as the taser shell.
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.

Wild Goose is offline