Just as a tool none of them ever said anything about using them on an enemy.
Alright. I'm curious to know how strictly our military follows that specific protocol of the Geneva Convention.
Just as a tool none of them ever said anything about using them on an enemy.
Can you link me to that Section of the Geneva Convention?!Alright. I'm curious to know how strictly our military follows that specific protocol of the Geneva Convention.
Can you link me to that Section of the Geneva Convention?!
Or is it just the Fact that the Danes don't permit Serrated Blades that makes you think it is in the Convention...
Not at all but thank you for adding that BS to this discussion so early into it...
Can you link me to that Section of the Geneva Convention?!
Or is it just the Fact that the Danes don't permit Serrated Blades that makes you think it is in the Convention...
The Closest you will find is In the Hague Convention;I believe you are correct. From what I've found, neither convention specifically name serrated knives / bayonets as "banned" weapons of warfare. The only argument that I would pose is that they could potentially fall into the Geneva Convention's Provisions which "bans weapons that 'cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering'" as some would say they do just that. The only problem is that the provision is very vague and does not mention specific weapons, just weapons in general.
All that garbage about wounding the other guy and taking two other guys out of the fight to move him back to the medics makes me gag everytime I hear it.
OUR military might operate that way, but adversaries sure don't. It is just a way to justify and excuse the poor performance of the 223/5.56 in many conditions.
Now, the M16 rifle/5.56 caliber will certainly put a person down for good, but certainly not like any of the 30 calibers.
Back to the OP, most domestic Police uses HP ammo and troops overseas use FMJ ammo. NYPD issued FMJ in the early days when they switched to the Glock. I don't know what they carry now.
Many individuals have been stopped permanently by FMJ handgun ammo
Have you ever shot someone with a 5.56/.223 round, just curious? You have to consider one factor, weight. Compare the weight of a Marines kit during WWII to our current conflict. Not to mention they did not wear body armor at that time either. From what I can find online, the current issued vest fully equiped weighs just over 30 lbs. Imagine if they had to pack a full combat load of .308 as well, compared to 5.56. It's not always cut and dry.
The Closest you will find is In the Hague Convention;
Section II, Chapter 1, Art 23, (e) [FONT="]To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
[/FONT]and as you noted it is, vague.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
No sir, I have not. I have witnessed a police action shooting at 25 yards with a short barreled AR with 52 grain match bullets. It about took the guys arm clean off. An instant stop. He was in no condition to continue his behavior.
There is no question in my mind that the 5.56 can be an effective round.
The "Black Hawk Down" troops told many stories about the M855 behaving like an ice pick and just not stopping the drugged up Somali's even after multiple hits.
I just resist the notion that our adversaries have the same interest in taking care of their wounded that our military does. The notion that a wounding round is more effective than a killing wound smacks of compensating and explaining the weakness of a varmint round.
You are absolutely correct, nothing is absolute or cut and dried. I just wish the bean counting weenies would be honest about the failings and positives about the 5.56. Don't feed me crap about one wounded and two to move him back. True in the Marines or US Army, not so true in an insurgency or Somalia type engagement.
I was issued a M16 in 1970.
I wonder why that is. How is one supposed to determine what weapons cause "unnecessary suffering" and which do not? For instance, if JHP are banned because they cause superfluous wounds & unnecessary suffering in comparison to FMJ, wouldn't a serrated knife fall into the same category as JHP when compared to a standard knife? Both JHP and serrated knives are not needed to increase the probability of killing or disabling an individual. So why ban one and include specific details as to why, but not even mention the other?
The military is not supposed to use JHP ammo due to it is against rules of land warfare.So, my wife asked me the other day an interesting question that I never really thought a whole lot about. Maybe some of the military or former military and LEOs or anyone who might know can chime in. My wife asked why the Military and LEOs don't use hollow point rounds in the handguns they carry. One thing I thought of was the cost, but I have also heard as well about ideas proposed by the Geneva Convention concerning torturing prisoners and now that military knives are not allowed to have serrated edges on them. Maybe this has something to do with it? Any input would be most appreciated.
As a further question for anyone with knowledge on the subject: What type of ammo do LEOs use in AR's if their department allows them to have one in their vehicle? Personal choice or is there some type of restriction?