I was reading some stuff about some guns, when I encountered

>>31326899
Believe it or not, the point of shooting people isn't just to kill them. A wounded soldier takes more supplies and manpower to take care of than a dead one.

>>31326916
OH BOY ITS TIME FOR SHIT MEMES

556 WUZ DESIGNED TO WOUND
223 WILL BLOW A DEER APART
9MM DOESN'T HURT
45 IS TOO SLOW TO KILL
THE MILITARY SHOULD USE THIS HERE 30-30
HUNTING CAMO IS BETTER THAN MILITARY CAMO

>>31326916
I see the thread is starting with this tired old lie.

That is not why the conventions limit 'unnecessarily deadly/cruel' ammo and its bizarre people keep desperately pretending it is. You idiots said the same thing about the M16.

>>31326899
>What is the point of these war conventions?
They were made to ensure that the losing side of war and soldiers in general received a fair and lawful treatment that is better than hell. Nobody knows who will win the wars of the future, so it is to everyone's benefit to enforce and accept these conventions, so that were they to ever lose, they could continue life after the war.

>>31326940
I honestly think the people questioning the convents tend to be Americans who are utterly disillusioned of the reality of war between two modern combatants and just how freakishly horrible it could be. The American idea of war at this point seems to be the Arabstomps in the Middle-East and the COIN operations they perform.
Prove me wrong.

>>31326916

Stop repeating this idiotic meme.

Nobody "tactically wounds" people. You shoot people dead because they're trying to shoot you dead. Life isn't a videogame where you get to pick out certain body parts to wound so you can get the S rank on that level or whatever retarded shit you're imagining.

>>31326899
the point of those conferences was to establish really shitty ROE to keep the goys ineffective

>>31326952
>I honestly think

Nobody gives a fuck

>Prove me wrong.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

>>31326974
Never mind that wounded soldiers can still kill you and if you win the firefight and take that ground YOU now have to spend the resources to look after those men.

File: penis.jpg (296KB, 832x1200px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 832x1200px

>>31326936
>hunting Camo is better than military Camo
Some of it is. Have you seen some of the shit they've come out with? Do you wake up fussy or something?

>>31326974
You try to shoot people dead, but since modern militaries have combat life savers and medics, they get near-immediate medical attention and may very well not die.

>>31326981
t. Disillusioned Burger

>>31326984
>YOU now have to spend the resources to look after those men.
What do you mean, anon? They were all dead. They fought bravely to the last man and absolutely nobody surrendered.

:^)

>>31326916
>Believe it or not, the point of shooting people isn't just to kill them

I don't see how this applies in warfare situation, where soldiers need to eliminate their targets as efficiently as possible. Should people thank their killers for blowing their brains out with a 9mm instead of a huge dum dum?

>>31326987
That is not related to the bullets being designed to kill or not though, a lot of research goes into making military ammunition as effective as possible.

>>31326985
The point is most hunting camo is very specific yet people it working amazingly where its designed for then wonder why a large national military does not adopt it.

>>31326945
That definitely makes sense, but I was talking more about specific conventions like the bullet related one I quoted. I see the point in civilian/prisoners treatment conventions and the like

>>31326985

THE ONLY SHIT I'VE SEEN COMES OUT OF YOUR MOUTH, YOU FUCKING TROGLODYTE.

HUNTING CAMO TENDS TO BE TAILORED FOR A VERY SMALL, SPECIFIC BIOSPHERE. THIS MAKES IT NOT FUCKING WORK WHEN YOU WANT TO DEPLOY AROUND HALF THE PLANET WITHOUT SHIPPING NEW PANTS TO THE TROOPS EVERY TEN MILES THEY TRAVEL.

>>31327023
The ban on expanding bullets in the Hague convention exists to minimise the amount of dead amongst the casualties, so that the wounded may one day after the war return to a civilian life and still be functional productive members of society. The less men you lose in the war, the faster your society will be rebuilt, after all.

I think at the time it was to stop armies making munitions to maim/blind opponents and kill through secondary infection.

Basically a push for nations to develop weapons to kill as humanely as possible.

It doesn't have much purpose in this day and age but people still adhere to it since nobody cares enough to change it.

>>31327045
It would be a very bad precedent as well. If that can be changed, then why not that as well? Then after a few wars we'd be lobbing weaponized super-diseases at eachothers cities and melting the skin off enemy troops with chemical showers.

>>31326916
Never post on my board again.

>>31326974
Yeah except your average engagement will be from far away and you'll most likely be shooting at a general direction... And even if you get into a firefight at hallway distance, people are gonna be using cover, which means you might have to shoot at a an elbow or a foot. So you'll be "trying" to shoot them dead too...

>>31327080
I don't know why I laughed so fucking hard at this.

This thread is gold. I think FPBP is dead as an idea after this. Holy shit.

Why aren't soldiers using paintball guns yet

Let's be honest, if one side stops following it, so does the other.

The Russians and Germans liked shooting each other with explosive rifle rounds, for instance...