« The truth about terminal ballistics | Main | The California legislature prefers felons to law-abiding gun owners »
Legality vs. legalism
A while ago, the military determined that using the Sierra Matchking bullet, with an "open point" as opposed to a hollow point, would not violate the Hague Declaration.
To the best of my knowledge, neither al-Quadea nor ISIS are signatories to that treaty. They can't be, since they are not nation-states.
The powers that be have tended to present the fight against them as rather law enforcement in nature: the objective is to "bring them to justice" rather than to kill them.
If that is the case, then domestic law enforcement is allowed to use hollow points (and every officer with any sense does so). Armed robbers, etc., are also not signatories to treaties. OK, why can hollow points be used against American criminals, but not against the enemy?
8 Comments | Leave a comment
Yeah. Virtue signaling. That's it. No, wait. That's not it at all. The reality is that if I get shot, I would much rather it be a solid core FMJ that hits me than any sort of hunting round. A hunting round is designed to inflict massive trauma, whereas a FMJ will just punch a little hole if it misses bone. The reality is that if we do it, it opens the door for them doing it, and I don't want it done to me or mine. People who fail to see the big picture and the consequences of actions are a mystery to me, but then again, Dunning-Kruger is a real, observable thing in my day to day life. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Figure it out.
Using FMJ makes sense when in a war where both sides are following more or less the rules. I do not think that truly applies with the type of thing we are doing now. ISIS and the like are not likely to be following the "rules" and we truly do want to inflict the maximum damage to reduce they chance of the continuing. But that said there is a what goes around comes around aspect and part of me feels we should do what they do in equal measure.
That said I agree with the more recent rules of wipe them out,
I think is was Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders that said we need safer bullets.
"We need safer weapons and safer bullets" cira 1994.
Even Clinton got feed up with her and fired her.
We AREN'T a Signatory either.
"The reality is that if we do it, it opens the door for them doing it, and I don't want it done to me or mine."
That was the whole idea behind the convention. To keep combatants from escalating into greater and greater atrocities.
So when ISIS starts off with beheadings, burning people alive, torture, mutilation; all the truly don't-play-by-the-rules garbage that the convention was supposed to prevent. HOW is OUR not playing by convention rules going to make them repentant and turn from their wicked ways?? In many war-like cultures playing "nice" is considered weak and an invitation for your opponent to double down on the atrocities.
I think you'll find that the convention states that it's "rules" only apply to signatories that abide by the rules. The 'stick' to the carrot is that if they don't, then their opponents get to let loose the hounds of hell on them.
Tying your hands behind your back is stupid and naive.
In what way are the military's hands tied? Do you really think the difference between victory and defeat is based on the use of FMJ? That's crazy.
It's more weighing the cost/benefit ratio, when you look at how much more expensive even basic hollow points are, plus deal with the pain of getting them through the required trials, and the idea they want to be able to swing immediately into a situation where it would be honored by both sides.
Gee - don't want those poor misunderstood children to be seriously hurt and maybe die would you? Who would we virtue signal about then? /snark