Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Do bullets remain intact in the body or do some bullets EXPLODE inside at contact and leave much damage? Never been shot. Have you?

Do bullets remain intact in the body or do some bullets EXPLODE inside at contact and leave much damage? Never been shot. Have you?

Posted - August 4, 2020

Responses


  • 6023
    Never been shot.  Thankfully.

    But yes, some bullets are designed to either fragment or "blossom" to increase damage.
      August 4, 2020 8:55 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    I expect the pain would be more that way. What kind of monster would create something like that Walt? Would be gained by i other than inflicting more pain. I don't get it. Thank you for your reply. I'm thankful you weren't shot too. Stay tuned. Who knows what's gonna happen futurely? Good I hope. Crap I'll settle for. What I think? It will be the very worst experience of anyone's life so far. I hope for the first one. What kind of wicked do YOU think cometh our way?
      August 4, 2020 11:57 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    The main reason for a bullet to "mushroom" ... I couldn't think of the term, the first time ... is to increase damage.
    It also serves the unintended purpose of slowing the bullet faster, reducing the risk of hitting something behind the target.

    If a bullet doesn't "mushroom", most of the damage is done by the shockwave of an aerodynamic object.
    When it "mushrooms", it creates a larger shockwave inside the target.  (I believe)

    It's like the difference between poking a wet bag with your finger - and hitting it with your fist.

    Bullets that break apart are designed to do so to create a lot of damage - like using a shotgun.
    It makes it more difficult to remove the shrapnel, and makes it more likely the target is going to die even if they get to a world-class ER.

      August 4, 2020 2:28 PM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    So the more cruel use the more destructive painful. Figgers. Thank you for your helpful reply Walt! :) This post was edited by RosieG at August 5, 2020 6:24 AM MDT
      August 5, 2020 6:15 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    To respond in a way to your reply to Durdle ... sometimes, it's "kinder" to cause more pain.
    Prior to the military focusing on weapons with "suppressive fire" capability - there was an understanding that wounding ONE soldier, took THREE out of action.  The one that you wounded, plus two buddies to carry him to the back lines.  Not to mention the psychological toll.

    Sure, shooting that poor fellows leg off caused him great pain and suffering for the rest of his life - but by removing those 3, and inflicting that psychological stress on untold others, you may shorten the battle.  Thus saving far more lives, than outright killing that soldier.

    It's like how the scientists who developed the atomic bomb, and the military who used it, rationalized it.
    And many people still do, to this day.
    By dropping the bomb and killing/wounding thousands of civilians - and forcing Japan to surrender - we perhaps saved millions of lives, since we didn't have to invade Japan.
      August 5, 2020 10:58 AM MDT
    0

  • 16199
    Truman destroyed 2 cities solely to keep the Soviet Union out of the Pacific theatre, in violation of the Potsdam agreement. Stalin had agreed to invade Japan from the west on August 15. Truman annihilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki for no other reason than to make Hirohito holler "uncle" before the Russians got there.
      August 6, 2020 3:04 AM MDT
    0

  • 3680
    A gun's sole purpose is to kill, so a bullet that can fragment or mushroom inside the body has a greater chance of killing its victim so he can't be rushed to hospital and mended.

    What sort of "monster" designs such things? Unfortunately it seems no "monsters", just ordinary people. For some reason I cannot fathom, one thing humans have always been "good" at, is inventing horrible ways to hurt or kill other humans.

    I used to know a military electronics designer, generally employed on radar and missile-navigation systems, and similar. So a long way from the targets, let alone the men inside them. He told me that in the interview for one post for which he had applied, he was taken to a bunker lined with slabs of special silicone-rubber containing various sensors, and the work entailed designing the monitoring and control circuits for these. So, he said, he asked the significance of the slabs. Their consistency was of body tissues - the lab was for testing fragmenting bullets, anti-personnel mines etc.  My friend turned the opportunity down. It was just too close to the reality of warfare for him.
      August 4, 2020 5:30 PM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    I can't buy "ordinary" people Durdle. To go out of your way to do more damage one has to be EXTRAORDINARILY evil. I mean you can kill or you can torture and then kill. I think the former is less evil than the one who goes the route of torture don't you? Some get off on giving pain to others. Some get off on being in pain. Isn't that what the SADO-MASOCHIST thing is all about? I do not believe "ordinary" people are sadists or masochists. I believe they are very sick very damaged very unordinary. Some boys pull the wings off butterflies. Some microwave cats and then graduate to more and worse as adults. Not ordinary by any means. At least to me. I would have turned down that job too. Too ghastly too grisly too real. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply! :) This post was edited by RosieG at August 5, 2020 6:26 AM MDT
      August 5, 2020 6:19 AM MDT
    0

  • 3680
    I should have been clearer.

    The frightening fact of it is that the majority of them are - or were - "ordinary" people, but caught up in circumstances beyond their control, and brutalised by the situation.

    It has nothing to with sadism and masochism. Those are erotic drives.

    I think the first time I realised that was hearing the account of a former prison-officer during the military rule over Greece, back in the 1950s-60s was it? Anyway, he described that like his fellow officers they would enter the service determined to treat the prisoners in a civilised way, but were slowly ground down by longer-serving ones already corrupted by the regime, into losing that veneer of civilisation. Gradually they would go from the odd insult to the pulled kick, then the intended kick, and so on until of ordered to torture a prisoner they would comply. They had no choice anyway of course. 

    There is nothing unusual about most of the individuals in cruel situations. They would be decent, even kind in most situations but become manipulated, brain-washed, brutalised by their surroundings, or desperate in a dog-eat-dog way, into cruelty. 

    I think I mentioned on another of your threads that Germany had just imprisoned an elderly man who as a 17yo of the rank of Private, had been complicit in mass-murders in a Nazi concentration-camp. I was wrong in detail - the sentence was suspended - but though we don't know how he spent the years since the War, in normal life it is very likely that he would only ever have always been a decent and honourable member of society.  

    '  

    Yes, I too have heard that dilemma about it being tactically better to injure a man in battle than kill him outright. I don't know if it ever formed any country's part of official training though. What is clear though is that for the most part, military people don't talk of that except perhaps in infantry circles. They shoot down a plane, blow up a tank, bomb a building or sink a ship; and try not to think of the occupants - unless afterwards rescuing survivors even though the enemy. It's mainly the infantry who by role, are deliberately shooting other men.


    I once heard one Britain's most senior soldiers say frankly, on the radio, that "war is cold-blooded murder". In a battle, it's a matter of you kill them before they kill you; and that has always been the case even if now fought in very different ways from the centuries-old tradition of two armies squaring up to each other on open ground.
      August 5, 2020 2:58 PM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Thank you for your very thoughtful reply Durdle. I appreciate it always. This bothers be hugely. You say that sadism and masochism is based on sexual "urges"? How can anyone be turned on by receiving or giving PAIN? What right-minded anyone goes out of his/her way to experience or inflict pain on others? That whole area of life eludes me completely. I can't get my brain around it.

    I'm told that under hypnosis one will never do what one would not do in life. That is to say you cannot order some to murder someone under hypnosis and have that person actually do it who would never murder in his/her "right" mind. So for me to understand how life's exigencies can change a person from kind to cruel is hard."The sun got in my eyes. The teacher doesn't like me. The dog ate my homework". Excuses I don't buy when people fail at something and blame "the other". I'm not saying you're wrong at all. I'm saying I'm unable to understand enough to accept it. Now to be fair I have never been in a circumstance where it was "kill or be killed". So I've never been tested and I surely hope I never am. But I don't think any amount of suffering on my part would cause me to want to inflict suffering on others. That partisan political ideology can be that overpowering shocks me. Have you ever been tested? I don't mean to pry but do you know if YOU could be changed enough to become cruel PURPOSELY? You said that sometimes when you try to understand the fullness of something you reach a point where you simply can't get any further. Well that's where I am. I guess I think evil comes when BAD SEEDS are born. If a "good" person is "made" to be bad I think the inclination to bad was always there. Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday! :)
      August 6, 2020 1:56 AM MDT
    0

  • 3680
    I admit it is difficult to understand others being drawn to sexual practices we would not like ourselves, but sadists and masochists do have their limits, and as with most people do know the difference between a consensual erotic activity and assault.  

    It is isn't single acts that turn someone who would otherwise not hurt a fly into a torturer or executioner, but situations or regimes that put them under sufficient pressure to become at least callous if not actually cruel.

    I used to own an anthology of articles and stories from the American men's magazine Esquire, and recall one that examined that question, with some terrible revelations. Among the example was an officer in Stalin's secret service, who became a very cold-blooded and methodical killer, even keeping accurate records of his victims and number of pistol rounds he used. One day he cracked, and turned his gun on his fellow-officers. The account did not say what happened beyond "abrupt end" to his career, suggesting one of them shot him. The main point of the article though, was why people do become like him, and I forget the details but I think it was that general atmosphere of cruelty in the regime. Also of course, fear, as in that case, when Stalin and his government ruled by fear and became more and more cruel and illogical over their years.  

    Some bad people undoubtedly come from bad backgrounds personally, or desperation due to poverty or oppression. Some probably do have character flaws or weaknesses that lead them into being bad. Some become so deeply mired in ideology that belonging to some terrorist group, for example, gives then a feeling of "belonging" - this is also the motive for most of the disaffected and (self-?) alienated teenagers who become caught up in violent street-gangs. 

    The frightening and baffling thing is though, that does not explain all those very many from apparently quite normal lives. I can understand if you are a soldier in battle you have to shoot to kill other human beings you can actually see in your rifle sights, but away from that, I find it difficult to comprehend too.

    I honestly could not say if I  could have resisted being brainwashed into being deliberately cruel, but I have never been in anything like that situation.   
      August 6, 2020 1:15 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you for your thoughtful helpful and extremely informative reply Durdle. It triggered something in me I didn't know was there. Could the capability/capacity of a "normal" person becoming monstrous be an AUTOMATIC response to survive? Maybe they have to put themselves in separate place...divorced from the day to day...so what is left can do what is necessary without really being that affected? I dunno what terror does to people. I hope I never find out but it may not be a conscious change. It may be out of their control. Could that be d'ya think? In that case it isn't really THAT PERSON doing it. Maybe it's like the Three Faces of Eve. Fractured iterations just to survive. Otherwise I can't imagine normal people becoming monsters willingly. Can you? :) This post was edited by RosieG at August 6, 2020 1:26 PM MDT
      August 6, 2020 1:22 PM MDT
    0