Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Tell me again, what exactly is this mysterious energy doing that you are so concerned about.
Besides hunting squirrels can you elucidate on your theory that any energy a bullet retains, having passed through the target body, still affects said body in a continuing manner? My contention is a really simple one, once that bullet has exited the target body it ceases to affect that body. Can you somehow refute that?
Tell me again, what exactly is this mysterious energy doing that you are so concerned about.
In post 104 of this thread, if you watch the video, the officer discusses how the first shot of the gunfight hits him and puts him on his back. He rejoins the fight and wins. But shot #1 hits him in the face, breaks his jaw and exits. It doesn't hit cns, it doesn't destroy major blood vessels or organs to cause a drop in blood pressure, and it doesn't destroy skeletal structures preventing him from remaining upright. Why does the officer end up on his back, placement and penetration?
FLSwampRat said:My contention is a really simple one, once that bullet has exited the target body it ceases to affect that body. Can you somehow refute that?
My contention is that the tissue destroyed by the projectile didn't put him on his back. What do you think caused it?Is it your contention the bullet physically knocked him over?
My contention is that the tissue destroyed by the projectile didn't put him on his back. What do you think caused it?
In post 104 of this thread, if you watch the video, the officer discusses how the first shot of the gunfight hits him and puts him on his back. He rejoins the fight and wins. But shot #1 hits him in the face, breaks his jaw and exits. It doesn't hit cns, it doesn't destroy major blood vessels or organs to cause a drop in blood pressure, and it doesn't destroy skeletal structures preventing him from remaining upright. Why does the officer end up on his back, placement and penetration?
In post 104 of this thread, if you watch the video, the officer discusses how the first shot of the gunfight hits him and puts him on his back. He rejoins the fight and wins. But shot #1 hits him in the face, breaks his jaw and exits. It doesn't hit cns, it doesn't destroy major blood vessels or organs to cause a drop in blood pressure, and it doesn't destroy skeletal structures preventing him from remaining upright. Why does the officer end up on his back, placement and penetration?
If he had been shot by a .25 acp fmj, and the projectile had followed the same path, do you believe the officer would have had the same reaction? What about a 125 grain hollow point from a .357 magnum? If the placement and penetration of the projectile is the same, would the officer's physical reaction have been the same?
Pudge said:I also believe that Dudedog's temporary loss of control of his leg was not due to physical destruction of tissue or psychological trauma, but a disruption of function due to the energy delivered to his body, and varying the amount of energy would change the level of disruption.
You are pushing a belief or theory about the stopping power of energy transfer. In doing this, all you're really doing is arguing that Energy Transfer stops an attacker because energy transfers stop attackers.
You offer no proof that this is true. It is, in fact an expression of faith: Faith is generally defined as confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof.
Your argument itself is a type of logical fallacy called "begging the question" -- which is the process of making a claim that uses the idea underlying the claim itself as a proof. That just doesn't work.
Offer us some valid examples that support your claim and you might find some folks agreeing with you. Find us some serious studies that show the effects of energy transfer on a person (or any living creature) that has been shot and you might find some folks agreeing with you. But until you do that, your theory or faith statement will continue to be met with skepticism.
Pure speculation, and it makes no sense whatsoever,It wasn't a psychological reaction. In any case what put him on his back and disoriented him was not the destruction of tissue caused by the projectile. I believe it is fairly obvious that the officer was concussed. I also believe that the severity of the concussion would be affected by the power of the round and the energy it delivered. I also believe that Dudedog's temporary loss of control of his leg was not due to physical destruction of tissue or psychological trauma, but a disruption of function due to the energy delivered to his body, and varying the amount of energy would change the level of disruption.
What we have done is equate the momentum of the recoiling gun with the momentum of the bullet and other effluents. That's not "unrealistic"--it is demonstrable fact.I think that equating the disabling effect of the energy delivered to the officer's head with the recoil experienced by the shooter is unrealistic,
Not at handgun velocites.and that the energy of a round can have a profound effect on a gunfight in addition to how deep it drives a projectile.
He fell down.No, I'm questioning why the officer ended up disoriented and on his back.
No, I'm questioning why the officer ended up disoriented and on his back.
As pointed out multiple times, there are a whole variety of reasons why that could happen.
As pointed out by Kleanbore, nobody here has any idea specifically why that happened and so that can't tell you if a different caliber would produce the exact same result. Heck, the officer in question probably can't explain it either.
So he didn't know he would be in a gun fight? This guy didn't know he would be attacked by a shark and he ended up on his backside.
NOTE: Note a real shark, but a funny simulation to teach people not to pound on the glass, LOL. There was no physical energy, momentum, or force conveyed to the man.
What?Ok, so the consensus is that I may well be correct in my speculation?
What?
No, not if your speculation is about "energy" and "disruption" caused by energy.
But what you are trying to say does seem to be becoming increasingly unclear.
I do know very well what the reason cannot be.You cannot say that unequivocally. You have already said that you do not know the reason, and speculated that it cannot be known.
Not useful.Did you watch the video...
I do know very well what the reason cannot be.
Not useful.
No.ou're saying that being shot point blank in the face with a 230 grain .45acp cannot cause a concussion?