XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 6/14/22 7:46 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 4:18:24 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 6/14/22 3:20 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 3:02:46 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/22 12:51, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <7fa43c91-7c4a-4e29...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Jane Playne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep using the terms "AR15" and "non-AR15".
>>>>>
>>>>> More whining just to say you're right even though you can't
>>>>> refute doctors.
>>>>
>>>> While you are unable to explain how a shot fired from an AR-15 causes
>>>> more damage than a shot fired from any other high-powered rifle, no
>>>> matter the caliber.
>>>
>>> Hey David, remember this?
>>>
>>> -hh>>> Which is more injurious: one .308, or three .223's?
>>>>
>>> DH > >Would not a better comparison be one .308 vs one .223?
>>>>
>>> -hh> Not really, because of stowed kills: 5.56mm is much smaller/lighter,
>>> -hh> so one can carry ~2.5 more 5.56mm than 7.62mm. As such, the
>>> -hh> performance comparison is done as a 2:1 to 3:1 ratio, both in terms
>>> -hh> of P(h), but also for P(I|h).
>>>
>>> So then, which is likely to be more injurious: one .308 to the chest, or
>>> two .223's to the chest, plus one more .223 to the head?
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> But then you have to say that it's better to injure as many as possible
>> without killing them so that the enemy is using more energy and time
>> collecting and treating the injured, because they might let the dead lay
>> there but someone attacking you will likely pick up their injured and
>> expend a lot of energy in saving their lives.
>
> Nope. First, that’s an old myth about 5.56mm. Second, your “less”
doesn’t apply
> to 5.56mm when one compares its 2-3 shots’ tract wounds for each 7.62mm
one.
>
>> Dead means no one is going to be in a hurry to try to deal with them....
>> the actual "battle tactic sweet spot" is to injure as many as possible
>> without actually killing anyone. The police proved it in Texas where they
>> waited an Hour because they say they believed the kids were all dead.
>
> Nope. Because they’ve changed stories and lawyered up, they’re just not
credible.
>
>
>> … The people making the policy don't understand the tactics and risks.
>
> But if that were true, then the TX boys wouldn’t have lawyered up: the
reality
> is they know that the TTP policy is correct and they fucked up big time.
>
>
>> The .223 wasn't designed to be the most lethal, so in the real world you
>> should be more worried about the .308 round than the .223 round .
>
> Incorrect, because the point is that it isn’t a simple 1:1 ratio: the risk
calculus is
> several (2-3) .223 for each one 7.62mm.
>
Having to take 2-3 shots to kill means that time is lost and efficiency
is lost and you have to hump more ammunition to your location and it
means more reloading and more chance of a bullet jamming or barrel
heating and the gas powered action wearing and heating or failing.
So you increase time and action and barrel wear by using a .223 and they
are all trade-off's for a "single bullet single kill" strategy and
piling up bodies in a war scenario...
Arguably the .223 isn't the most deadly but is the most efficient way to
neutralize or pacify an enemy group... but as a single shot single kill
it's a piss-poor choice.
What the .223 is good for is creating chaos and injuries...
Had the police moved on the Texas school it's likely there would have
been more injuries and fewer deaths as a ratio.
Which has been my entire point in this.... the police tactics killed the
children, at least some of them even though some may have died due to
the close range and type of weapon the deaths were partially caused by
doing nothing to help the wounded because they considered everyone
inside to be dead already, so they had time to wait for the SWAT TEAM.
That error in judgment was the real killer.
Like I said about Survival Rifles before, the AR-7 was good for
airplanes where weight/size was and issue, because ammo and the gun are
small and lightweight. But as a Survival Weapon the AR-15 took the
lead as an over all Survival Weapon for average people because it's
light and easy to carry and powerful enough to really be used for self
defense and hunting and you can carry a reasonable amount of ammunition
and it works despite a lot of abuse and dirt. It also does *NOT* have a
*full-auto* trigger because that wastes ammunition creates heat and wear
and more moving parts or complexity/technology to fail. Wasting
Ammunition in a survival situation or depending on complicated tech is
NOT smart survival tactics.
> To express this mathematically, assume P(I|h) values of .5 and .66, (*) then
> calculate the odds of not being incapacitated:
>
> Thus::
> One .66 shot has a 33% odds of not being incapacitated
>
> But:
> Two .5 risk shots has 25% odds of not being incapacitated,
> Three .5 risk shots has 12.5% odds of not being incapacitated.
>
> Still want to take your chances with the .308? Be my guest.
>
> -hh
>
Computers do math, so it isn't the final measure of smart.
You have to NOT just do the math but then you have to evaluate the
numbers use and their value in the context of the question.
The math may or may NOT be sound but your priorities are flawed if you
rely only on the math.
--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-That's Karma-
*IF YOU'RE READING THIS YOU ARE A SURVIVOR*
*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is we talk about it, we hate
censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you. Make them
prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you didn't
find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you then
you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber* *Doctrine* is the
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://rumble.com/vkt8ld-call-it-the-stupidity-of-the-american-
oter-or-whatever.-how-libs-exploit-t.html
*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is
299 - When Democrats are in power... telling the truth is an act of
insurrection.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
