|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 5, 2011, 05:03 PM | #1 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; J
There's been a couple threads that reference the Hague Convention. I thought posting the text of the section in question might clear some things up.
The basic reasoning behind the ban on expanding bullets is in the Declaration of St. Petersburg; November 29 1868 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/decpeter.asp Quote:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp Quote:
|
||
April 6, 2011, 09:02 AM | #2 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
I think another important point to remember is that the Hague Convention was written prior to discovery of antibiotics. In those days a round that fragmented or made ragged wounds would likely become infected and lead to a lingering, painful death if it didn't kill you immediately.
If I recall correctly, this was actually one of the complaints the Germans raised against the use of shotguns in trench warfare during WWI. If that is one of the driving rationales behind the Hague Convention, then much of the modern day emphasis on using FMJ is actually misplaced and may even be worse than using modern hollowpoints. If we ever actually end up shooting at someone who is a signatory to the Hague Convention, that point might actually become apparent. |
April 6, 2011, 10:50 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Infection might have been a consideration in the Hague Convention.
I tend to think it had more to do with the increased damage to soft tissue and increased blood loss. A solid projectile is more likely to be a through and through wound. Not pleasant but easier to treat. Another consideration is that an expanding bullet is more likely to fragment. That leaves bits that are going to be harder for a surgeon to find. A solid bullet that stays inside the body is going to be easier to find and remove. |
April 7, 2011, 08:03 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
The whole logic of the convention is flawed to me.
War is horrible. You end a war by quickly and decisively ending the threat as you see it. The notion of making war "less lethal" is so counter-intuitive to me I can barel wrap my head around it.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
April 7, 2011, 08:10 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
Quote:
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson |
|
April 7, 2011, 09:19 AM | #6 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
If my guess regarding some of the original intent of the Hague Convention is correct, then a good argument can be made that bullets like the TSX and TBBC are more appropriate for land warfare than M855. |
||
April 7, 2011, 11:59 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Sorry, beyond finding the text I didn't do any research. After a quick look at Google all I found were pretty general articles like Wikipedia.
It was easier to find scholarly articles back in the day when a 486 processor was hot stuff. Now there is much more chaff than wheat. Harvard Law School library has several articles that reference the Hague Convention, some are interesting, none dealt specifically with expanding bullets. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...0/docherty.pdf This article comes closest. Quote:
|
|
April 7, 2011, 12:20 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
SPEMack618: I think the logic of the Declaration of St. Petersburg is pretty straight forward.
It's the same logic we use in self defense. We don't want to kill an attacker we want to stop the attack. In war we want to stop the enemies ability to make war. For that purpose a wounded soldier is just as good as a dead one. If you want to do war math, a wounded soldier helps end war faster than a dead one. In battle a dead soldier stays where he is, a wounded soldier needs to be carried out by one or more other soldiers. Off the line a dead soldier gets buried, a wounded soldier requires the expenditure of resources that would otherwise be used to continue the fight. The argument that war should be as horrible as possible in order to end it quickly was tested in WWI. It didn't work. Politicians and generals were quite happy to send men and boys into the meat grinder no matter how horrible it was. |
April 7, 2011, 02:16 PM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: October 14, 2008
Location: Southeastern Virginia
Posts: 86
|
As a MedEvac pilot in Vietnam and an attack helicopter pilot in Desert Storm, I can say without equivocation that as long as shrapnel producing explosives are used; the type of rifle bullets used is a moot point. War is not a 'game" that you can make rules for, if the human race was far enough advanced to obey rules of war there would be no need; there would be no wars. As long as there are wars they should be fought with maximum prejudice, because the duration is the only true variable to be controlled. The biggest killer of American troops in this, and the later half of the last century, is the ludicrous idea that we can fight a "nice clean" war.
__________________
Gary Take-offs are optional, landings are manditory!! |
April 7, 2011, 03:05 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
The idea of applying self defense legality to a war is a bit flawed.
Also, the idea of stopping the ability of an enemy to make war, and by wounding a soldier, we do more to hamper the enemy war effort is great reasoning, if we're pushing the Germans back across Western Europe in 1944. There are no "strategic" targets in Iraq for the 8th Air Force to bomb, there is no Taliban industry to destroy in Afghanistan, only fighters, armed with rifles, fighting us, armed with rifles. This is a war that needs to be ended not by stopping them, but by killing them. And for it is worth, I never once saw a Taliban insurgent lend aid to one of his wounded comrades. More often than not, they left their wounded for us to deal with, knowing that we were mandated to render aid. To make this a firearms related rant, I doubt we would here half the gripes about the M-4A1/5.56mm if I could carrying some friggin' 72 grain hollow points in my M-4A1 like I deer hunt with in my Mini-14. Same goes for the M-9/9x19mm
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
April 7, 2011, 03:18 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
The only forces that are affected by the wounding of one taking out many are those forces that care about their people and want to keep them. In the case of the US, this is taken to the point of being unreasonable, sort of like civilized men making rules about an uncivilized action. So while we may be wanting to kill our enemy as fast as possible to end the war in Afghanistan, not just stop them, our enemy is better off just wounding us. The Hague Convention works well for them because will will risk the lives of dozens or hundreds to save a single wounded soldier, often getting one or more additional soldiers injured or killed in the process. This aspect of the Hague Convention is disturbing.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
April 7, 2011, 03:45 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
I never understand that you can toss a fragmenting grenade at a fellow but you cant use a semi jackted soft nose round as in any type of hunting round.
Quote:
|
|
April 7, 2011, 03:49 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
It is interesting to note that the U.S. Army must have put some stock in the notion of the resources used even if its not fully true or has some limitations.
As a young private I was put on a casuality evacuation exercise (REFORGER 1986) and evacuated as a casuality that had to play out the role of being wounded. My wound card said I had a serious chest wound and a serious head wound but that for some unknown reason I had never lost consciousness.... When I got to the aid station they made some notes of sometype or another and then worked on others.... I remember being suprised that no one spent time on me with such grave wounds.... After 4 or 5 hours I asked a nurse why they weren't working on me and she said thats because all the arm and leg wounds had to be done first so that they could return to the battlefield quickly.... I would either be judged dead or treated later... I remember telling the nurse that if it had been real and I still had my sidearm and no one was treating me a few people might have to join me for letting me die. She smiled and said oh we made a mistake we shouldnt have left you with your pistol... Good thing WWIII never came.....
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; April 7, 2011 at 04:24 PM. |
April 10, 2011, 01:20 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
I will say that I have absolutely no qualms about sacrificing myself, or the guys in my squad to save a wounded Trooper. Granted it comes from the Ranger Creed, but I know we have internalized the notion that no one gets left behind. Sacrificing ten is worth it to me, morally, to save one.
And rendering aid to the enemy is something that separates an American Soldier from a terrorist, among other things.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
April 10, 2011, 02:24 AM | #15 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
I find the whole concept of human war laughable in light of Willie Pete, Flamenwerfer, Cluster Bombs, Napalm, Bouncing Betties and Hellfires, all of which will turn you into various degrees of gruesomely dead even better than a V-Max
WildbutheytheworldafunnyplaceAlaska ™©2002-2011 |
April 10, 2011, 02:10 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Listened to a CD based on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians running from 'fire worms' which were burning tornado like things that moved from the center of the firestorm. Mothers running with babies on their back - and the babies were on fire.
So today, we have fits over collateral damage.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 10, 2011, 02:47 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
|
You know, I think I'd rather be shot with a JSP bullet than hacked to death with a sword (a common and accepted military arm in the late 19th and early 20th century). It seems to me that the people who drafted the Hauge convention most likely knew more about politics than they did warfare.
|
April 10, 2011, 06:25 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
While not an expert on soci-politico affairs, nor military matters other than my own little section, I've always been of the opinion if that we made war as violent as possible, it would end faster and be all the more less likely to occur.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
April 10, 2011, 07:58 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2009
Location: Rockford IL
Posts: 149
|
There was also the issue that a wounded soldier consumed more resources than a dead soldier. In those days, & today in most cases, wounded soldiers were retrieved & treated. That consumed resources that would be denied the enemy to add more soldiers to the battle. Not too relevant today with Naplam, Nukes, Cluster Bombs, and do not forget Human Wave Attacks.
|
April 11, 2011, 05:16 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum "A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields |
|
April 11, 2011, 10:55 PM | #21 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Myth, myth, myth myth. Until AFTER WW2, the vast majority of wounded died on the battlefield or laid there in agony for hours. WildstandunderthemeningateAlaska ™©2002-2011 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|