I think the Geneva convention *can* be interpreted to ban shotguns and frag grenades (because they're designed to maim rather than kill).Sydney wrote:
But...aren't shotguns illegal to use in warfare according to some treaty IIRC?
I thought that was a myth if it IS illegal, then we evidently don't give a damn (I'm relatively sure it holds as much water as the "no .50 cal weapons" thing):Sydney wrote:
But...aren't shotguns illegal to use in warfare according to some treaty IIRC?
Your thinking of the Hague Convention of 1907.Sydney wrote:
But...aren't shotguns illegal to use in warfare according to some treaty IIRC?
man i rather have unecessary suffering then dead.Karbin wrote:
Your thinking of the Hague Convention of 1907.Sydney wrote:
But...aren't shotguns illegal to use in warfare according to some treaty IIRC?
Art. 23 "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; "
Don't see how a 12 ga to the chest causes any more unnecessary suffering than a few 9mm or 5.56mm to the chest...probably less, as you wouldn't live nearly as long.Karbin wrote:
Your thinking of the Hague Convention of 1907.Sydney wrote:
But...aren't shotguns illegal to use in warfare according to some treaty IIRC?
Art. 23 "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; "
The fact that it's unnecessary suffering means that you will probably die afterwards.agent146 wrote:
man i rather have unecessary suffering then dead.Karbin wrote:
Your thinking of the Hague Convention of 1907.Sydney wrote:
But...aren't shotguns illegal to use in warfare according to some treaty IIRC?
Art. 23 "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; "
Surely then you could use the shotgun grenades for area denial by firing at an area the same way you would throw a grenade (well I don't know there specifically are enemies there so to make sure they can't take it I'll fire a grenade.)Karbin wrote:
The idea of stopping "unnecessary suffering" started in the late 1800's conventions to deal with
exploding small arms ammo.
That's why you only see full jacketed small arms ammo in use.
So, using direct fire 'nades is a no no.
It's a small distinction but, like WP or Napalm, it's NOT suppose to be used to directly cause casualty's.
They are classed as area denial and screening.
You can use shot guns. The load must be slug, buck and ball or sabot for casualty's but, not direct fire 'nades.
Crazy, I know but, that's the rules.
The new type of ammunitions include high-explosive, fragmentation and armor-piercing grenade with a warhead that only arms at a range of +3(m),.. doorbreaching?M.O.A.B wrote:
Shotguns are generally used to breech doors and stuff, like blow the hinges off. Plus they'll be more dangerous close up than rifles or pistols and the chances of suffering after a shotgun blast is probably less than a rifle or pistol shot.
The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III.Karbin wrote:
The idea of stopping "unnecessary suffering" started in the late 1800's conventions to deal with
exploding small arms ammo.
That's why you only see full jacketed small arms ammo in use.
So, using direct fire 'nades is a no no.
It's a small distinction but, like WP or Napalm, it's NOT suppose to be used to directly cause casualty's.
They are classed as area denial and screening.
You can use shot guns. The load must be slug, buck and ball or sabot for casualty's but, not direct fire 'nades.
Crazy, I know but, that's the rules.
You are correct sir. And the host for some strange reason enrages me too.RoosterCantrell wrote:
I think this was on future weapons too. I'd find the video but the host annoys the shit out of me.
Maj/Gen R Rommer (ret)God Save the Queen wrote:
what idiot told you grenades are area denial weapons?
The host is an arrogant prick and the show is pure propaganda. They never say anything negative about the subject they are discussing, yet they might completely contradict themselves in the next episode discussing a rival subject. The only reason I watch it is because there is nothing like it on TV and I possess enough of a critical mind to filter out the host and the crap that utters forth from his mouth.DBBrinson1 wrote:
You are correct sir. And the host for some strange reason enrages me too.RoosterCantrell wrote:
I think this was on future weapons too. I'd find the video but the host annoys the shit out of me.
Last edited by Lai (2008-05-20 00:30:24)
And he chooses to do so,.. it's called free will.ZombieVampire! wrote:
He probably only says what they tell him to say.
Rental killer is a job too, still it is by some considered ethically immoral and exercising it is punishable by law. As such it might be adviceable to choose another job (notice the emphasis placed on choice).ZombieVampire! wrote:
It's called a job.
well then, that guy is fucking moron who doesnt know the difference between area denial weapons (mines) and anti-personnel weapons that are used at the enemy, not when he's not there. the only way you turn a grenade into an area denial weapon is by setting one up as a booby trap. Your major general (ret) is a fucking moron.Karbin wrote:
Maj/Gen R Rommer (ret)God Save the Queen wrote:
what idiot told you grenades are area denial weapons?