Justin,
You are officially an animal rights nutwhack now, sorry!
Actually being against animal cruelty doesn't mean you even favor animal "rights", just humane treatment.
tellner said:Don't worry, with a grapefruit spoon, sawdust and enough crack cocaine you should be over it soon
This may be, I don't work in a lab and maybe I don't have all the facts. However if in fact it is necessary as a final test,so be it. I would rather see 100 pigs killed this way, than 10 LEO or Soldiers because they trusted an unproven round. I'm not saying this should be a first step, or ''what would happen if '' thing. Last and final only,and the number of animals kept to a minimum. The round must pass all other tests first. I don't like it, but I can live with it. If it was, as someone suggested an advertising video, then it is unnecessary and unacceptable.No. No it isn't. Not even for fancy new bullet technology hogwash... er... sorry about that. But no, animal testing is not necessary in this application. We have enough testing materials and know how to bypass this sort of lowbrow testing. Drugs and other products is one thing... but bullets? Please. That's just being stupid.
Justin said:No, I'm not.
Only a sapient creature capable of articulating its rights has them.
That I'm patently against needless cruelty to animals hardly means that I'm in favor of the animal "rights" movement.
The round must pass all other tests first.
I stand by what I've said before, but this case may not be justified. Like I said I don't work in a lab. but some of what they claim don't sound right. Maybe it is and maybe it ain't.During a telephone interview last month, Thomas said the bullet he fired struck one of the attackers in the upper left quadrant of the buttocks, killing him immediately. Under most circumstances, a 5.56mm bullet striking a person’s buttocks wouldn’t be expected to create a fatal wound. The shot was made at a distance of about 110 meters, Thomas said, using a standard M4 carbine with a 14.5-inch barrel.
I’ll spare the details, but when Thomas and his colleagues later examined the body they couldn’t believe the destructive effects caused by that 5.56mm round.
Creeping Incrementalism said:In regards to testing live animals in general, not to this specifc video (which I won't download now since I'm at work)...
All kinds of consumer products are tested on animals. Lots of other scientific research is done on animals. I've even heard of dogs being drowned. It's necessary and vital because it saves the lives of people. Testing ammunition on animals is also necessary, as a verification of gel testing. Gel only simulates generic muscle tissue anyway, not bone or any organs which react differently than ballistic gelatin. If you think animals are more important than people, than I find you disgusting. Also, unless you are already opposed to all animal testing, hunting, and are a vegatarian, you'd be a hypocrite if you said it was wrong to test weapon effects on live animals.
Regarding Bulmer, though, that guy is a scam artist. His high-speed techno pseudo-military operator goobldey-gook is pure comedy.
CentralTexas, you can call PETA a terrorist organization, because it and its leadership support terrorism. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare individual members of churchs and the NRA to the senior leadership and unofficial policy of an organization.
BigRobT said:First of all, this is a PeTA site. How do we know the video wasn't manipulated?? PeTA often does things to make them seem worse than they are. I do not trust PeTa or any other terrorist group to tell us or show us the truth.
Ever hear the term, "running around like a chicken with it's head cut off"?? This dates back to the days when people actually slaughtered their own livestock. When the head is cut off, there are a few minutes that the chicken can still run around. Of course, without the head, it can't "see" anything. After it's all done, it becomes dinner.
I have seen enough evidence to support my conclusion. And I did not say that all PETA members support terrorism. But enough important ones, and the ones with the money, do support it, so that's why I say the organization supports it. I saw clips from the hbo dog show and I don't see how the fact that one kennel doesn't treat its dogs well is relevent to this discussion.CentralTexas said:How do you know what the "unofficial" policy of an organization you don't belong to is? How do you know all PETA members support terrorism?
No, we don't need to kill them for food, as whey protein is an even better source than real meat. I'd like everyone who is against testing ammo by shooting animals to also declare that they are completely against all sport hunting. It isn't necessary, and many kills aren't clean, even by the best-intentioned hunters. At least be consistent. And would you rather cosmetics be tested on people first?PlayboyPenguin said:You can be a realist and know that animals need be killed to provide food and even sometimes used for medical research and still be against things like cosmetics testing, un-needed cruelty and suffering, etc.
George Hill said:"Testing ammunition on animals is also necessary, as a verification of gel testing."
No. No it isn't. Not even for fancy new bullet technology hogwash... er... sorry about that. But no, animal testing is not necessary in this application. We have enough testing matterials and know how to bypass this sort of lowbrow testing.
Meplat said:To shoot one in the body not only wastes meat, it does nothing to "prove" or "disprove" a bullet's performance in the game field.
Roy Weatherby, on an African safari, intentionally gut shot dozens of plains animals with a .257 Wby. Mag. rifle in an attempt to demonstrate this theory. Most (perhaps all) were one shot kills. I understand that he even killed a Cape buffalo with his .257 Magnum.
You are obviously just argumentative and not willing to see the reality of this situation. There was no need for this. Nothing you say will change that. Food is a legitimate reason to kill an animal and even then I believe it should be done humanely. Keep using your flawed "all or nothing" arguments all you want. It doesn't make your stance any stronger.Creeping Incrementalism said:I have seen enough evidence to support my conclusion. And I did not say that all PETA members support terrorism. But enough important ones, and the ones with the money, do support it, so that's why I say the organization supports it. I saw clips from the hbo dog show and I don't see how the fact that one kennel doesn't treat its dogs well is relevent to this discussion.
No, we don't need to kill them for food, as whey protein is an even better source than real meat. I'd like everyone who is against testing ammo by shooting animals to also declare that they are completely against all sport hunting. It isn't necessary, and many kills aren't clean, even by the best-intentioned hunters. At least be consistent. And would you rather cosmetics be tested on people first?
Yes it is. We do not have enough testing materials to bypass what is the most realistic testing possible not involving humans. Are there simulants for bones in gel? What about different organs, like the liver? The liver is damaged by temporary cavity stretch alone, unlike normal muscle. How about gel specific to every other organ? How about measuring specifc blood loss due to hits to the heart--does heart tissue react the same as all other tissue? What about making refinements in gel to make it more accurate, if necessary? What about the effects of temporary stretch on nerves--does it stun them? I think gel testing is good, but there are still a lot of things I'm curious about that I haven't seen answered by it. Considering how the technology is relatively new, I don't see how you can say it's already perfect, the be-all and end-all. Also, animal rights activists make the same arguments you do about testing animals for every other purpose, including medical testing.
Creeping Incrementalism said:
RyanM said:When shooting animals, shot placement is the key, with penetration a close second. It doesn't matter if you use a .50 BMG or a pellet gun, if the bullet perforates the heart, the animal will die quickly. If it hits the brain stem, it will be nearly instant. The only real differences are margin of error in hitting vitals, and slight difference in time to death due to difference in hole size.
Gelatin takes out the infinite, uncontrollable, unknown, immeasurable variables present with animal shootings, and gives you a very definite way of seeing how much damage bullet X does compared to bullet Y. If you measure that X bullet makes 2x as big a hole in gelatin than Y bullet, then you know that under identical circumstances in the field, X bullet will make 2 times as big a hole as Y bullet. But circumstances are never identical. The best you can do is generalize that X bullet is probably better, based on gelatin tests. If you actually went out and shot things with X and Y bullets, you would need to do literally thousands of shootings with each bullet to get anything of statistical importance.
If you flip a coin 10 times, you know what your chances are of it coming up heads 5 times and tails 5 times? It's not 1/2. It's closer to 1/4. Now imagine trying to find a statistical correlation between heads and tails, using a sackfull of coins, which can each only be flipped once. But all the coins have holes randomly drilled in them, some have the same thing on both sides, some are made of lead on one side and aluminum on the other, some have internal voids, some are bent, etc. Every single coin is different from the rest. And every single flip is different from the rest. How many flips would it take before you got the expected half and half? With a data set that screwed up, it might never happen. That's the problem with testing bullets on animals. No two animals are the same, even if you could somehow shoot every animal in exactly the same place every single time.
This is a ridiculous statement.Creeping Incrementalism said:No, we don't need to kill them for food, as whey protein is an even better source than real meat. I'd like everyone who is against testing ammo by shooting animals to also declare that they are completely against all sport hunting. It isn't necessary, and many kills aren't clean, even by the best-intentioned hunters. At least be consistent. And would you rather cosmetics be tested on people first?
Yes it is. We do not have enough testing materials to bypass what is the most realistic testing possible not involving humans. Are there simulants for bones in gel? What about different organs, like the liver? The liver is damaged by temporary cavity stretch alone, unlike normal muscle. How about gel specific to every other organ? How about measuring specifc blood loss due to hits to the heart--does heart tissue react the same as all other tissue? What about making refinements in gel to make it more accurate, if necessary? What about the effects of temporary stretch on nerves--does it stun them? I think gel testing is good, but there are still a lot of things I'm curious about that I haven't seen answered by it. Considering how the technology is relatively new, I don't see how you can say it's already perfect, the be-all and end-all. Also, animal rights activists make the same arguments you do about testing animals for every other purpose, including medical testing.
No, we don't need to kill them for food, as whey protein is an even better source than real meat. I'd like everyone who is against testing ammo by shooting animals to also declare that they are completely against all sport hunting. It isn't necessary, and many kills aren't clean, even by the best-intentioned hunters. At least be consistent. And would you rather cosmetics be tested on people first?
Creeping Incrementalism said:http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/1-6600.asp
Roy Weatherby, on an African safari, intentionally gut shot dozens of plains animals with a .257 Wby. Mag. rifle in an attempt to demonstrate this theory. Most (perhaps all) were one shot kills. I understand that he even killed a Cape buffalo with his .257 Magnum.
Mad Chemist said:This is a ridiculous statement.
While growing up, my family often relied on elk and venison to feed ourselves. Money was tight and we sure as hell could not afford whey protein shakes at the health food store. :banghead: Hunting is an essential skill for survival.
I'm not sure if your intent is to be inflammatory or if you just enjoy parading your own ignorance.
If you really want to put a fine point on it, this ammo IS intended for use on humans. So if ballistic gelatin, digital ballistic modeling, and metallurgical testing, cannot provide data that is analogous to human results, then I doubt that the pig tests would be a close enough approximation either. I guess the only real solution is to test is on people.
You are officially an animal rights nutwhack now, sorry!
Humor & can't believe after the next sentence you thought I was serious.
Actually being against animal cruelty doesn't mean you even favor animal "rights", just humane treatment.
The only problem I have with this is if the round is faulty or substandard it could lead to allot of wounded,crippled,and un-recovered animals. Every year there are a number lost animals using proven technology, I don't think that's an area we want to try out experimental stuff. At least a penned animal can beIt's possible to test the ammunition through general hunting without having to tie a poor, helpless animal to a fence to see how much it squirms around. They could have given some of this ammunition to hunters and checked the corpses of the animals shot during hunting season. This would be acceptable, would give more test subjects (100 rounds to hunters, 100 bodies to test), would be more "humane," and would give more real-world experience for the ammo.
Justin said:Honestly, CT, I stopped reading after the first line. You've posted things just as silly as the first line before, with no humor implied.