GUN how come flashbangs aren't available to civilians?

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Jago, Feb 13, 2004.

  1. Jago

    Jago It helps if you hit it.

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2000
    Messages:
    27,965
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. mrbill

    mrbill New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cibolo,Tx
    :dunno:
    maybe cuz they're afraid ppl will use them in robberies or to blow shit up somehow. just a guess, i really don't know, i was just offering a suggestion.
     
  3. TwoGuns

    TwoGuns Medical Crew

    Joined:
    May 3, 2001
    Messages:
    8,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA/Northern AZ
    They're not a defense item, they're for offense. Plus, they can be lethal.
     
  4. mrbill

    mrbill New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cibolo,Tx
    how so? i'm ignorant and ask out of curiousity. forgive my spelling, it isn't one of my strong points.
     
  5. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most have very powerful concussion effects. Ruptured eardrums or even pneumothorax lung injuries are not uncommon from people close to one going off without protective gear. That goes for those deploying them as well as targets. Although controlled, they are exploding devices.

    Besides which, for better or worse, it would again come down to the masses thinking that if you have enough time to play with gadgets, you didn't really need a gun to defend yourself with.
     
  6. RealFastV6

    RealFastV6 OMFGh4x0rzZ!!111

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Connecticut
  7. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    kellyclan, you'd be right in that line of thinking too. if you've got time to pull a pin, and wait for a FB to go off, you're not in danger. they're considered destructive devices, and while LE would tell you they don't, they can start fires. not something i'd want going off in my own house.

    i still wouldn't mind having a few. but i'd want enough to where i could toss one, and see how loud and bright it is, and still have some left over. LE isn't supposed to toss FBs into places where children might be, because it can result in death.
     
  8. Balthazar

    Balthazar Guest

    Im not anti-gun, I own several, but no civilian needs a flashbang. Remember, theyre offensive weapons. Dangerous? Maybe. A ruptured eardrum sure. Pulmonary damage? Rember that concussive effects tend to favor air-spaces particularly, so people exposed to things like explosions have lots of problems like that. I read about some military divers accidentally exposed to military sonar, and Im sure they had some problems with fluid in the lungs, but they didnt die from it. Now they sure as hell cant hear anymore but if youve got a bunch of petechial hemorrhaging in your lungs youve got bigger problems I guaruntee. All the same, forget about flashbangs, unless you want to mug a cop, which I totally advocate.
     
  9. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    i'm for the civilian ownership of anything. why should the people who are supposed to SERVE & PROTECT (according to their badges, not the supreme court) be allowed to have them, when their only purpose at that point is to be used against the very people who pay their salaries? and WE, the lowly citizens should not? why? since when does a flashbang make you a criminal? the fact is, if you have an explosives permit, you can get them. so, all of a sudden, a piece of paper makes you less of a threat? bullshit. you're either a normal citizen, who should be able to own whatever the fuck you want, so long as you do not endanger others merely by possessing it, or you should be in jail. in the case of flashbangs, firearms, and some explosives, there is no danger of injuring anyone else just by possessing them. in the case of certain explosives, and hazardous materials such as radioactive things, you endanger others by possessing them. so, if you can show that you have the FACILITIES in which to house such substances, you should be allowed to have them, regardless of "need."

    if you can't trust people to have the stuff that could be used to kill, then you can't trust them to have firearms (they might shoot someone), cars (they might run someone over, or get drunk and kill someone in a firey head-on collision), or bathtubs (they might drown their babies in them, or drop a plugged-in toaster in there on somone), or stairt (they might push someone down them), or clothes (they can be used to strangle someone, and in the case of pantyhose, to conceal the identy of someone). if you cannot trust someone to own something that is potentially dangerous if misused, then you cannot trust them to be out of prison. none of this probation shit. you're either in, because you cannot be trusted, or you're out, because you can. if somone has not been convicted of a felony, or an aggrevated misdemeanor, then they should be able to do whatever the hell they want, so long as it does not deprive someone else of their life, physical well-being, rights, or property.
     
  10. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    by the way, i'm pretty sure that firearms do some pretty rough internal damage on their own. so do knives, and so does a 3 Hz tone at 120 dB.
     
  11. Balthazar

    Balthazar Guest

    Youve completely missed the point. Youre for the civilian ownership of anything? Do you think anyone should be able to own a bazooka or some fragmentation grenades? Do you think someone sould be able to buy claymores at a walmart? The reason that flashbangs arent legal is because theyre used to disorient people so they can be shot, and you dont need that kind of capabilty.
     
  12. Balthazar

    Balthazar Guest

    BTW 3Hz isnt audible, and 120 db aint that loud. Firearms do internal damage because they shoot big pieces of lead through your body
     
  13. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    yes, as i said,

    i know that 3Hz isn't audible. i never said it was. i said that at energy levels of at least 120 dB, it causes internal injuries. 120 dB IS loud. it is, in fact, as loud as you can hear. you can hear sounds louder than 120 dB, but your ears don't recognize them as being any louder. your body may feel them as being louder, which may in turn make you think they're louder, but your auditory senses do not register any sound levels above 120. it just stays there. but, 120 is also the pain threshold, so if you do hit that, you're likely to be just a wee bit uncomfortable too. "aint that loud" my ass.

    the reason 5 Hz and lower is so dangerous is that with such high wave amplitudes as 120 dB, it moves internal organs. at first, you're just disoriented and nauseated, but in a short period of time it causes them to rub against each other, causing the linings of the organs to deteriorate, which causes internal hemmorrhaging, which can result in DEATH.

    police are actually using low frequency and high frequency as riot controll because of the disorienting and nauseating effects. they don't use them at low enough frequencies to do bodily damage at the amplitude at which they're used. but, they do use 120 dB or more. it works.

    and firearms shoot LITTLE pieces of lead. ARTILLERY shoots big pieces of lead. we should be able to own that too.
     
  14. Balthazar

    Balthazar Guest

    I see, I see. Either you slept throught the first all important years of schooling or youre still there. I just happened to buy a new sony walkman and it says here in the little informational pamphlet, 120 db "a rock concert near the speakers, a thunderclap." Then it goes on to 140 as "a gunshot blast, a jet plane", and even further to 180 as "a rocket launch." You know, I dont know everything, but I dont expect people to expound on subjects when they really dont know much about it. Its misleading, like youre misleading anyone reading this post. You talk about "not being able to hear above 120 db, and "pain threshholds." Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you just make it up? Internal organs to "rub against each other?" Youre a dingbat footrat.
     
  15. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    i never said sounds didn't go higher than 120 dB, but dB is a scale that measures the kinetic energy of a sound wave. the human ear and its related brain functions do not acknowledge that sounds get any louder than 120 dB.

    also, it is fairly common knowledge that 120 dB is the pain threshold for people with normal hearing. also, i don't have access to it anymore, because i don't go to the school that had it in its library, but some of that info came from a college musical acoustics textbook. the rest came from my psychology class and prior knowledge.
     
  16. Balthazar

    Balthazar Guest

    What am I saying people. Is a rock concert going to make your heart explode? I dont think. Are grenades dangerous? Yep.
     
  17. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    by that account, so are guns, and i guess we shouldn't be allowed to own those either.

    nothing is inherently dangerous unless it could actually cause someone harm simply by being left alone. in the case of firearms and grenades alike, if you leave them alone, they are simply paperweights. if you fiddle with them, you stand a chance of hurting someone. ownership should not be based on "need" because then you open up the ownership of just about everything to a "need-based" system. "oh, what do you need that for? sorry, i don't think you do." the government uses that all the time to deny rights. the right to bear arms is also something to consider. it doesn't say "FIREarms." just ARMS. that would include any type of weapon that could be used to protect the soveriegnty of this nation, or to protect the citizens from an overpowerful government.
     
  18. mrbill

    mrbill New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cibolo,Tx
    also, if you justify ownership on the basis of need, ...... then tv's, cars, computers, microwaves, toasters and countless other items would be eliminated from our grasp. do we NEED them, no. each and every one of those items can be used in a criminal manner. does that mean we should prevent the people who use them legally from owning them? hell no! if you aren't hurting someone with your possessions, then imho, you should be able to have whatever you want.
     
  19. skeletor25rs

    skeletor25rs Yetis & Deer

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2001
    Messages:
    22,698
    Likes Received:
    160
    Location:
    TX
    I NEED an M1 Abrams :drool:



    .....and footrat sounds like he knows what he's talking about to me :dunno:




    .....but I'm gullible as hell so who really knows :rofl:
     
  20. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    an abrams that's not de-mil'd might be considered a national security concern, since it contains lots of top secret armor and electronics. you can buy tanks, but not new ones. you can buy F14's, but not new ones, and certainly not any with the important electronics in them. but you can certainly get operational F14s if you're absolutely loaded. you can get mortars, grenades, probably claymores and other explosives, if you have an explosives permit. so, it's not as if citizens aren't able to own them. and nothing prevents those citizens who do own them from using them for ill-intent. if someone has not demonstrated a reason in the past to prevent them from owning such items in the present, they should be allowed to, regardless of whether you think they "need" them or not. if they have demonstrated something in the past, either they're still a danger, and you lock them up, or they're not a danger, and you let them own them. once again, you either trust them with things that, when misused, can kill, or you don't trust them out of a cell.

    at least, that's the way it ought to be.
     
  21. Balthazar

    Balthazar Guest

    Abrams armor is highly secretive, but from what I have read it is designed primarly to defeat depleted uranium penetrators, which pose the greatest threat to a modern main battle tank, as opposed to the older HESH and HEAT rounds. Just as a sidenote, according to Janes the newest generation of Russian DUs have the capability to kill abrams.
     
  22. Jago

    Jago It helps if you hit it.

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2000
    Messages:
    27,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    speaking of tanks, did they ever figure out what the mystery object was that penetrated that tank in iraq last year?
     
  23. Balthazar

    Balthazar Guest

    I believe the mystery object was a dual warhead HEAT(High explosive anti-tank) missile.
     

Share This Page