Kirbinator
Regular Member
the 3 branches of government?: Injustice, Ignorance, and Incompetence.
The one that watches after the others is Insolence.
the 3 branches of government?: Injustice, Ignorance, and Incompetence.
Both concussion grenades, and stun grenades (which I believe you were intending to refer to), are capable of causing injury, although it would require extreme proximity to the blast. Not to mention that flashbangs occasionally set houses on fire, which can be quite lethal.
And both of them are pretty much guaranteed to cause hearing damage (without protection), which is a underrated form of injury (I know it's cool for many who have destroyed their hearing, but I will not take kindly to any person who assaults and causes permanent damage to one of the five senses in the only body I have).
I mention this because of an incident where a cop threw a flashbang under some bleachers occupied by a bunch of kids, if I recall as some sort of demo of "how cool we are".
Generally, the incident drew the cop apologists out of the woodwork, most of whom argued that hearing loss doesn't count as an injury, and anybody who didn't think it was totally awesome to have a cop damage their hearing by setting off a flashbang, deserves hearing loss anyway for not appreciating how awesome it is for cops to flashbang kids, because, hey, flashbangs are "non-lethal".
I know it's off-topic, but I just felt like saying: it isn't cool to flashbang innocent people. I value my hearing much more than most folks seem to, and I'd ask for a little respect for that. I seek to reject assertions that flashbangs are an appropriate law enforcement tool for scenarios which have not yet developed as calling for escalated force.
From the wiki.
A "stun" grenade IS a flashbang.
The concussion grenade is an anti-personnel device that is designed to damage its target with explosive power alone.
The term concussion is often erroneously applied to stun grenades. This is not descriptive of the effects caused by the grenade. The term concussion is used because the grenade relies on its explosive power to create casualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade
Carry on with that.
Thanks for the info, but I hope you weren't implying that it somehow contradicts anything I wrote (or even thought at the time).
Sorry about that. I should have removed the bits which specify your user as the source of that quote. I know that Schumer was the source of that quote.
I was merely using your post as a spring board for elaboration on the extreme annoyance I experience when certain people claim stun grenades can't cause injury.
Concussion grenades are often lethal. They have been used in WWII, Korea and 'Nam to permanently injure personnel without causing explosive damage to the building. The are meant to deafen--permantly, and/or cause a concussion that could lead to death. The Marines used them on Iwo to take out the Japs inside ammo dumps without setting off the ammo. If you're too close to them, you can die. Further away ain't much fun either. Flash/bangs are much less concussive, but the fbi used them to kill innocent women and children at Waco, so their potential incindiary application can kill very effectively. Of course, the gutless, pos cowards at Waco didn't have to go hand to hand with women and babies, so that was ok. Although they prefer to shoot innocent women holding babies in the back, things worked out ok for them as they burned 87 alive. (Hanssen--another heroic fbi piece of filth, wanted to be there, but he had a date with the KGB.)