[avianmosquito] Headshots: a lesson in Stupidity

[Simon_Jester]

His debating strategy has always been to point out what shitty, idiotic, and ridiculous ideas you have.

Again, all he does is parrot others, namely you, Serafina, (who isn't a particularly intelligent person either) Hellion and Simon_Jester.

I, for one, question your right to criticize other people's intelligence, or to judge whether they are worthy of respect. Much as I would question a small child's right to criticize other people's maturity. You can't call someone immature unless you know what maturity looks like. You can't call someone unworthy of respect if you don't know what ought to be respected. And you sure as hell can't call someone stupid if you wouldn't know what intelligence looked like if it marched up and down in front of you waving its hands and shouting to get your attention.

This is not productive nor worthy of respect. Now, on the rare instance (only one so far) that he backs up one of these claims by providing evidence instead of just dogpiling like the troll he is, I give credit because credit is due, but otherwise he deserves no respect from me.

I can't speak for Norade, but given everything you've told me about yourself (directly and indirectly), I'd be just as happy not to have your respect...

It isn't trolling to call you stupid WHEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY BEING STUPID.

That's not the point, numbnuts.

Surely it is not. It cannot be the point when there is no point, so far as I can tell. You are ignorant. You are ignorant not only of many well-known and basic facts, but of the context the facts fit into. Which leads you to misinterpret the facts that you do know, to ignore things that are important, and to think minor details are more important than they really are. To make matters even worse, you are ignorant of how ignorant you are, implying that you are an exceptional expert in subjects like ballistics and anatomy while totally ignoring the input of real experts in those subjects.

You are ignorant, so much so as to seem willfully ignorant. Willful ignorance is a form of stupidity. Norade has called you stupid because of this. It is simple.

In ALL of them, you make absurd claims, ask for advice or criticism, and then either ignore it or claim people misunderstand you without actually explaining why.

When I do explain why people ignore my points, especially if a single point renders the arguement moot regardless of victor.

I have tried rather hard to follow every argument you've made on your threads- all five of the ones you started. In most cases, I found them to be at best adequate, often bad, and sometimes incredibly bad. No single point has led people to call you an idiot. You had to work rather hard at convincing me that you were an idiot, for example.

If you want it to stop then sack up, quit whining like a bitch, and either defend your positions in various threads or concede that a twenty-five year old with barely a high school education

Arguementum ad hominem, cease and desist.

That is not an argumentum ad hominem (I would be less unimpressed by your invocation of the concept if you'd spelled it correctly). That is calling you an idiot.

He is not saying you are wrong because you are an idiot. Quite the opposite. He's saying you're an idiot because you're wrong all the time. Which is not an unreasonable conclusion, in my book.

Now, if he turned that around and said "well you're an idiot, so you're wrong," that would be ad hominem. He'd be trying to discredit your argument by discrediting you. Instead, he has observed that your arguments discredit themselves, and concluded that they also discredit you.

It doesn't really matter, it doesn't matter what I do. No matter how solidly I back something up, no matter how well constructed an idea is, it's automatically going to be stupid anyway because I'm hated by a few people on the board in higher standing than I am.

I, for one, will believe this when I see you construct an idea well, AND see it attacked. Since I haven't seen you do the first, it's irrelevant whether you are being attacked or not.

[Sea Skimmer]

The best part about his attempt to hide behind the rules is of course, the fact that we also have debate rule no.5, which says you must back up your claims. He made some very specific ones I've now twice called him out on, and has not even tried to reply.

[CaptainChewbacca]

When I do explain why people ignore my points, especially if a single point renders the arguement moot regardless of victor.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but this isn't actually a valid sentence and contains no argument.

Arguementum ad hominem, cease and desist.

Request declined. You are trying to present yourself as an authority in various fields without establishing any sort of credentials or basis for that authority. Your lack of education speaks to that point, and is relevant.

This would only be relevent if I had claimed to be an expert. As far as terminal ballistics, I claimed to be more knowledgeable than the average layman, which I am, and nothing further. I cannot concede a statement I never made.

You have yet to demonstrate you possess more correctly applied knowledge than a layman. So far the crux of your argument has been that a shot to the head is less fatal and more cruel than a shot to the heart. You've only cited your OPINION to that, without providing any reliable expert testimony. In rebuttal, you've had paramedics, law enforcement, and military personnel all tell you that you're wrong.

Your response has been to claim you're misunderstood, while making the same claims with a similar lack of evidence.

Now who's trolling?

It doesn't really matter, it doesn't matter what I do. No matter how solidly I back something up, no matter how well constructed an idea is, it's automatically going to be stupid anyway because I'm hated by a few people on the board in higher standing than I am, who have no issue ignoring points and taking things out of context to deface me and will never admit when I make a valid point because of their distaste for me in general. Your ad hominem attacks are proof enough of that, and if I'm wrong here, PROVE IT.

Shot through the heart,
And you're to blame.
Son, you give trolls a bad name.

This board doesn't hate you. It hates idiots. People have actually defended you IN THIS THREAD on the basis of things you said in your firearms thread. So far you don't merit hate, right now you're a diversion into the absurd because we all can't believe someone can be so wrong in so many different subjects and still believe he's right.

If you started making sense, people would agree with you. If people are taking things out of context to mock you, that's because your 'facts' and 'science' are so bad they don't actually need rebutting because they're OBVIOUSLY wrong to everyone here. I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you're a moderately intelligent guy who hangs out with a lot of stupid people in his life, and so your friends have convinced you you're a genius. You're not. You're a B-minus. And that's ok, the world applauds the B-minus. You just need to understand there's a LOT of people in the world (and on this board) smarter than you with information just-as-good-if-not-better than yours, and you should be paying attention to it.

Unfortunately, if you continue to tilt at windmills and claim persecution on the grounds that we cannot comprehend your brilliance, you'll be gone in a week. Let me tell you right now, though, you can ask around and nobody had a worse introduction to the board than I did. I was ACTUALLY hated by senior members on this board. Mocked, titled, even a temp-ban or two before they figured out I wasn't actually breaking rules. But they listed to what I said, and eventually figured out I was an intelligent guy who wasn't necessarily wrong, and look at me now! Cranking out Stargate/Indiana Jones fanfic for the whole world to enjoy. Sure, they aren't to thrilled with my politics, but nobody's got a vendetta against me.

Like they say; SDN will flame you for being an idiot, not just for who you are.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Edit: Why is it always PRIDE that gets these guys? Who's got the Mike Wong quote about pride in their sig? Its a good one.

[Aaron]

If he actually felt that he was the victim of a vendetta or abuse then he should be contacting an admin, not bleating about it in the thread. But that isn't what his bitching is about is it? He's trying to distract folks from the fact that he doesn't know anything about the topic.

[avianmosquito]

First, I would like to say that headhsots are just as effective as heartshots in a situation where you cannot possibly miss, (read: contact shot) they are less effective in every other circumstance because if you're a centimetre off when shooting the heart, your shots hit the aorta, or at least a lung. If you're a centimetre off when shooting the brain, you hit... air. No matter how good at it you are or what weapon you are using, you can't miss well enough to win a firefight.

Actually suppressive fire wins a lot of battles. The vast majority if gunfire in combat is only aimed in the general area of the enemy in the first place, and much of the time you cannot see someone to shoot him. Only muzzle flashes and smoke.

Not by itself, no. You need to hit in order to eliminate an enemy, so while suppressive fire is valuable, you still need to land killing, or at least crippling, shots at some point.

Further, if you shoot the heart the brain dies immediately, if you shoot the brain the heart keeps beating for a while. I understand this is completely irrelevent in a firefight, but the point still stands.

No your still full of shit as always. The brain does not die immediately, all the more so since you so very much love hair splitting on this issue. The brain does not die until it runs out of oxygen or is oversaturated with CO2 which can take as long as two minutes after the heart stops. The every last braincell will however die almost immediately if a bullet splits it open and lets the blood drain out directly, making any further supply from the heart irrelevant. That starves the cells of O2 far more quickly, as the blood stream otherwise acts as a short term reserve of O2 even if it is not flowing.
Of course, since you love hair splitting so much, I will also point out that even with brain death, and a stopped heart every last cell is still not dead for a while in many cases, which is the whole reason why organ harvesting for transplants works.

It's very short-term. The brain uses a lot of oxygen, that's why so much blood flows to it. It will use up the oxygen in the surrounding blood quite quickly, and brain cells begin to die withing seconds, not minutes, when the heart completely stops and cannot restart. While it may be 2 minutes before every cell in the brain is dead, this is irrelevent because they will be past the point of no return within a minute, and conscious for only a second or two after the heart stops.

Also, in the end, you do not need every cell in the body to die, you just need the brain and heart. I couldn't care less if their liver, kidneys, pancreas or whatnot is still alive, the person they are attached to is not. This is why it isn't considered a-moral to remove these still living organs from a dead person's body.

. A bullet through the heart will kill them equally dead, with slightly greater reliability and an underpowered hit will never leave them cruelly crippled for life. (Which is considered a-moral in my mind.)

Your fucking trying to kill someone with a gun, and you think the morality of shot placement matters? You shoot to kill with guns, and if you don't need to shoot to kill then you have no justification shooting at all. You have a real screwy idea of morality.

Do I need another list? Well, it might not sufficient, I would need a flowchart to show all the things wrong with that statement, but I'll try anyway.

1. If two shots are equally effective, go for the easier one.
2. If two such shots are equally difficult, go for the one that has less penalty for a miss.
3. If two such shots have the same penalty, you should take the one that will not leave them crippled for life or possibly vegatated should it fail to kill them.
4. This is no hinderence in combat. When you shoot, you shoot on reflex, and reflex fires where you trained it to. Simply train to shoot for a specific sub-target, and you will.
5. I never said anything against shooting to kill, a heartshot is a kill-shot.
6. Finally, you don't neccesarily always want to kill, and neither of these shots applies to such situations. In these situations, you aim for the limb you need to disable, such as an arm that is holding a weapon or a leg they're trying to run on. These are valid situations. Even though they don't apply to basic infantry, they still apply to others.

As for the head being hard to hit, yeah. We all already fucking know that already, and we sure didn't need a worthless 'essay' from an idiot like you to tell us.

Maybe you don't, but if you already know something you acknowledge it and move on. There are people who think the extremely minor advantages outweigh the difficulty and the risk, and some are so retarded they do not acknowledge the problems at all.

Take a hint buddy, its obivious you aren't really conceding and...

No shit, Sherlock. (See, that's how you address something everyone knows. Try it, it works.)

...still do think you have some super superior knowledge of ballistics you could school us all with.

By the sound of your arguement so far, that isn't a bad quess.

No ones buying it and I suggest you just shut the fuck up. When you are this fucking wrong just running away and hiding isn't such a bad idea.

Turning tail and running is against my morals as well, as is cowering like a kicked dog. Bring it, and I'll do the same, I'm neither the little pussy you seem to think I am nor am I capable of acting as such.

Okay, that was a concept so simple you would really have to try to misunderstand it.
When you are a centimetre off-target, it means your shot is a centimetre away from the target, it has nothing to do with the target's size. You can be a centimetre off when shooting at a tank as well. The only way being a centimetre off will still result in a hit is when you're using a projectile with a radius of over a centimetre, which would mean a diametre of at least 20mm.

If I aim for the center of a head, I can be off by more then a centimeter and still fucking hit the head. Do you really not understand that a 'target' can be an area, and not a single infinitely small point, and yet a shooter does in fact aim for a small point? He might not hit that point but if the target is still hit then the target is hit.

That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. Keep it up, dipshit, you're making me look good, and that's hard at this point.

[Ghost Rider]

LOL, I love this sort. Scream, rant, rail, and never learn...though sadly with enough money and ego you can always claim they are not good enough to understand one's vision.

As for the why? We all know why it is pride. A lot of people when presenting something have a particular point of view, and invest a great deal of themselves into the project or object. So when told otherwise in any fashion, a great many will assume said opponent is a moron who doesn't view it in THEIR point of view.

Skeeters?

The first posts he did are meant to impress, and the reaction was "This was shit.". So his pride in writing this thing that he thought he put effort into is mauled and he feels that they are fucking retards for not seeing it HIS way.

Now this doesn't make him right, or the opposition wrong. But really it is very very easy to see how his pride got offended.

[Aaron]

Not by itself, no. You need to hit in order to eliminate an enemy, so while suppressive fire is valuable, you still need to land killing, or at least crippling, shots at some point.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Suppressive fire can kill just fine. Besides the way things are done in Afghanistan (maybe Iraq, I dunno for sure, not a Yank) is to keep the enemy occupied until arty, air support or the Leo 2's arrive.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I really wish I didn't try to reach out to all the ones like this. I keep hoping I can save them, but I don't know if I ever do any good.

[Serafina]

I really wish I didn't try to reach out to all the ones like this. I keep hoping I can save them, but I don't know if I ever do any good.

You can save those who (learn to) shut up.

If they do not do that, they pretty much talk themself to death.

[avianmosquito]

The best part about his attempt to hide behind the rules is of course, the fact that we also have debate rule no.5, which says you must back up your claims. He made some very specific ones I've now twice called him out on, and has not even tried to reply.

Both require breaching the privacy of others. If I must concede a point or leave it unbacked to protect their privacy, so be it.

[Aaron]

I really wish I didn't try to reach out to all the ones like this. I keep hoping I can save them, but I don't know if I ever do any good.

Don't bother. Every time I do it falls on deaf ears or the guy bites my hand (Colfax).

[CaptainChewbacca]

Skeeter, any particular reason you're addressing everyone's posts but me? You know, the one guy trying to help you?

[Serafina]

The best part about his attempt to hide behind the rules is of course, the fact that we also have debate rule no.5, which says you must back up your claims. He made some very specific ones I've now twice called him out on, and has not even tried to reply.

Both require breaching the privacy of others. If I must concede a point or leave it unbacked to protect their privacy, so be it.

You could post NUMBERS.

You gave us - well, pretty much nothing.
Besides, any serious researched wants his results to be published - you just have to go out there and find published studies.
Can't do that? Gee, what a surpise.

[avianmosquito]

Edit: Why is it always PRIDE that gets these guys? Who's got the Mike Wong quote about pride in their sig? Its a good one.

I'll be the first none to admit my pride is an awfully big target.

[Sea Skimmer]

Both require breaching the privacy of others. If I must concede a point or leave it unbacked to protect their privacy, so be it.

That doesn't make a fucking lick of sense man. How on earth is someones privacy violated by you telling me what gun and bullet you shot at some unspecified time and location? So I'm going to have ton conclude you are full of shit; concession accepted though, I'm not going to ask again.

[avianmosquito]

Skeeter, any particular reason you're addressing everyone's posts but me? You know, the one guy trying to help you?

I'm I not talking to you now?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Skeeter, any particular reason you're addressing everyone's posts but me? You know, the one guy trying to help you?

I'm I not talking to you now?

I wrote you a page of advice, you didn't acknowledge it, and you're still doing the same stupid shit.

I'll be the first none to admit my pride is an awfully big target.

Get rid of it. On this board you have NOTHING to be proud of, and nothing you've done off the board matters here.

[avianmosquito]

Both require breaching the privacy of others. If I must concede a point or leave it unbacked to protect their privacy, so be it.

That doesn't make a fucking lick of sense man. How on earth is someones privacy violated by you telling me what gun and bullet you shot at some unspecified time and location? So I'm going to have ton conclude you are full of shit; concession accepted though, I'm not going to ask again.

Well, shit. I forgot that one, the other I was thinking of... nevermind.

As far as the weapon and ammunition, it was an M4 carbine modified for semi-automatic usage only. (As to be legal.) The round was an M196. Curse my lack of observance not to notice this is a tracer until I had fired it... indoors to boot. Of course, this was nearly a decade ago, and I wouldn't make that mistake now.

EDIT: the other one, requesting me to give you the names of the people I discussed this with, even contact information, is requesting a breach of their privacy that I will not allow.

[avianmosquito]

Skeeter, any particular reason you're addressing everyone's posts but me? You know, the one guy trying to help you?

I'm I not talking to you now?

I wrote you a page of advice, you didn't acknowledge it, and you're still doing the same stupid shit.

I'll be the first none to admit my pride is an awfully big target.

Get rid of it. On this board you have NOTHING to be proud of, and nothing you've done off the board matters here.

As far as this goes, I can try to block my pride, but I'm keeping it.

[The Spartan]

As far as the weapon and ammunition, it was an M4 carbine modified for semi-automatic usage only. (As to be legal.) The round was an M196. Curse my lack of observance not to notice this is a tracer until I had fired it... indoors to boot. Of course, this was nearly a decade ago, and I wouldn't make that mistake now.

Wait a minute... modified to be semi-auto? As in this weapon was previously full auto? How did your friend get his hands on this?

[avianmosquito]

The best part about his attempt to hide behind the rules is of course, the fact that we also have debate rule no.5, which says you must back up your claims. He made some very specific ones I've now twice called him out on, and has not even tried to reply.

Both require breaching the privacy of others. If I must concede a point or leave it unbacked to protect their privacy, so be it.

You could post NUMBERS.

You gave us - well, pretty much nothing.
Besides, any serious researched wants his results to be published - you just have to go out there and find published studies.
Can't do that? Gee, what a surpise.

Yes, but you people ignore numbers. You, of course, are going to claim you don't, but we'll see about that. I've given the numbers, prove me wrong. For fuck's sake, prove me wrong. Acknowledge them, consider them, work with them, don't just ignore them like I'm damn convinced you and every other person here is going to. (Misanthropy is underrated.)

[avianmosquito]

As far as the weapon and ammunition, it was an M4 carbine modified for semi-automatic usage only. (As to be legal.) The round was an M196. Curse my lack of observance not to notice this is a tracer until I had fired it... indoors to boot. Of course, this was nearly a decade ago, and I wouldn't make that mistake now.

Wait a minute... modified to be semi-auto? As in this weapon was previously full auto? How did your friend get his hands on this?

That's my line.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well, shit. I forgot that one, the other I was thinking of... nevermind.

As far as the weapon and ammunition, it was an M4 carbine modified for semi-automatic usage only. (As to be legal.) The round was an M196. Curse my lack of observance not to notice this is a tracer until I had fired it... indoors to boot. Of course, this was nearly a decade ago, and I wouldn't make that mistake now.

Okay we getting somewhere now! Now you gave a specific figure for ricochet energy. For that to mean anything for us, we need two other pieces of information. What was the target you measured the energy from made of, and what angle was it set at relative to the line of sight you shot it from? In other words, how big of a ricochet was it. I hope you can understand now why its so damn annoying to us that you threw around unqualified information like that as if it made an argument on its own, and then just kept going on. Simply stating an energy level with no qualifications means NOTHING, which is why everyone ignored it. A ricochet could be anything from a slight deflection to a projectile bouncing back right at the shooter.

[The Spartan]

As far as the weapon and ammunition, it was an M4 carbine modified for semi-automatic usage only. (As to be legal.) The round was an M196. Curse my lack of observance not to notice this is a tracer until I had fired it... indoors to boot. Of course, this was nearly a decade ago, and I wouldn't make that mistake now.

Wait a minute... modified to be semi-auto? As in this weapon was previously full auto? How did your friend get his hands on this?

That's my line.

So... are you going to answer the other question?

How did this friend or you or whoever get their hands on a full auto that they then modified to semi-auto? Or if it wasn't them that modified it and it was the licensed gun dealer, why would he spend the money on acquiring a full-auto only to modify it to semi-auto thereby spending more money on it while also reducing it's resale value to below his cost for purchasing the full auto when he could have bought the semi-auto in the first place or sold the full auto to someone with a license to own one?