?? que?? I did a dupe search, nothing turned up...

it was the same gun fairy with the same knife but stabbing a gel block.

It was less interesting, but basically the same thing. The melon is a slightly better thing to test it on because it actually reacts to the injection, the gel block just kind of farted it back out instantly without creating a pocket or anything.

Probably only good for stabbing melons.

COME ON GUYS, IMAGINE IF A KNIFE INJECTS WASPS IN THE WOUND AFTER YOU STAB SOMEONE!

Whatever happened to poisoned knives? If you really want someone dead, hell, all you have to do is pop a squat and wipe your knife on some dookie.

No, Gmork, if you really want someone dead, you want them dead *quickly*. You want them dead quickly, because until you kill them - or at least incapacitate them - they will continue to fight back, and very possibly kill you. Smearing feces onto a sharp object is a great way to encourage infections, but that is a slow, long-term, and in most cases completely unnecessary approach to the problem, really only suited for booby-traps and asymmetric warfare. But exploding someone's chest cavity with a blast of compressed air, that gets immediate results. One stab, and, in theory, you can end the engagement right there.

(I say "in theory", because I need to see the results of some independent tests before I'll be convinced this design will work in the field. It sure sounds like a good idea to me, but the manufacturers are encouraging consumers to use this knife against bears, sharks, and wild hogs - and I for one am not willing to accept "sounds good on paper" when a hunger-crazed bear is involved)

People get cut with their own knives frequently during scuffles. That's why poisoned knives are a bad idea.

I imagine injecting someone with wasp venom would be pretty illegal.

Though I was hoping he would be injecting wasps into the watermelon because I hate wasps and I want them to suffer.

"No, Gmork, if you really want someone dead, you want them dead *quickly*."

No, you just want them dead. Not everyone cares how quickly it happens. Also not reading the rest of what you wrote.

Ignorance of why you are wrong doesn't stop you from being wrong.

Also, it's worth pointing out that mortality rates from infected wounds are actually fairly low! Fecal-based CBRN warfare has historically been carried out, not with intent to kill, but with intent to wound, in order to divert and drain resources. Fighting-to-wound can be a force multiplier, as wounding or maiming incapacitates not only the wounded individual, but also his friends (who need to spend time medevacing him), and medical personnel. A victim of fecal CBRN weaponry will generally not die, but will be a considerable burden on his unit's logistical infrastructure. (this is a fairly common approach to asymmetric warfare, and is the same philosophy behind many modern AP mines, for example)

In other words, poop is an effective weapon *precisely because* it is not lethal.

But hey, don't let me stop you! You trying smearing your poop inside a bear, see if you last the week or so before infection finally sets in.

Except that I'm not wrong. You're making the assumption everyone wants someone dead immediately. You aren't omniscient, and if even one person exists who is fine with shit-poisoning on a knife, it invalidates that premise.

Also - you're the only one who brought up using the knife against a bear - I said some_ONE_, as in a person. If you're using a knife, Co2 injection or not, you've already lost. A bear will still fucking kill you if you get that close.

Not to mention the previous video against ballistic gel showed it to be ineffective. The melon only cracked because the entry wound wasn't flexible - the rind caused there to be an actual buildup of pressure, unlike soft flesh which easily lets the gas escape.

But sure, go ahead and test your theory of the fart-knife on a live charging bear. I'd love to see you try.

Three things, Gmork.

If you're going to be pedantic here, I never said that "everyone" wants someone dead immediately. I said: if you really want someone dead, you want them dead immediately. There are, of course, some dumb-dumbs out there who don't think things through - you, for example - but that doesn't 'invalidate' anything.

Second, with just a knife, yes, a bear will kill you. That is why you need something MORE - why, in theory, you'd want a gas-injection system to explode the bear, and not some magical fecal CBRN material, which won't kill anything, even in theory, unless that thing somehow managed to survive the encounter with you (read: killed you), AND it failed to go get medical treatment for like ten days or more.

Third, did I say this knife would work? No. I said quite clearly that I am withholding my judgement on this knife until I see further data. *However*, with that said, you obviously didn't watch the same ballistics test as I did - or, if you did watch the test, you only saw the first half. The knife performed poorly against a solid block of ballistics gel, but against a hollow block of ballistics gel - which is more analogous to a chest cavity - AND a watermelon, the knife caused considerable damage.

I mean, come on Gmork, really? As a gun nut yourself, you of all people should be above lapses in judgement like this.

As of right now, you are on suspension. Please leave your sidearm and your Official GunNut Merit Badge on the chief's desk, and then security will escort you out.

"If you're going to be pedantic here"

You mean like every single trolling reply to me you've ever made.

Continue.

"I said: if you really want someone dead, you want them dead immediately."

An assumption. Some people are fine with waiting so long as it still happens.

"There are, of course, some dumb-dumbs out there who don't think things through - you, for example - but that doesn't 'invalidate' anything."

Ad hominem garbage. Your mask is slipping.

"Second, with just a knife, yes, a bear will kill you. That is why you need something MORE - why, in theory, you'd want a gas-injection system to explode the bear,"

I was never talking about a bear, only you were. A gas-injection knife will not save you from being mauled even if you somehow cause internal injury to the bear. They're very hearty creatures, they will still have enough in them to kill you even if your magical fart knife does somehow cause eventual death.

" and not some magical fecal CBRN material, which won't kill anything, even in theory, ""

It wont kill anything? History begs to differ. People died from simple infections before antibiotics - and since we're not talking about any sort of locked time period, a fecal knife is just a slower-acting poison for someone without access to the right medicine.

Even with the right treatment, sepsis is not an easy thing to deal with - especially if it's near vital organs and the septic material has spread between the time of injury and treatment. Medicine is not magic.

"I mean, come on Gmork, really? As a gun nut yourself, you of all people should be above lapses in judgement like this."

I was never in my life a "gun nut", such ad hominems should be above you, but you seem to be taking things far more personally than you used to, and as a result are lashing out in a more childish manner than I've ever seen from you before.

"For someone without the right access to medicine" Yeah, and that "someone" consists of: bears, sharks, that's about it. 'People', especially 'people' who have been stabbed by a fat man wielding a poop-coated knife, are not going to sit around and wait for their wound to get infected. They will go to the ER. They will get their wound treated, one way or another. We are not living in the magical bygone days of 1736, where nobody had access to sterile medical facilities.

I get it, though. I understand why you said what you said. You see, Gmork, this is a common trap that armchair warriors (especially those of the gun nut variety) tend to fall into. The trap is this: you have failed to take into account the actions of the opposing party. Like a Bullshido practitioner who thinks he can disarm a mugger by using an overly-specific karate throw, you lack both the good sense and the practical experience necessary to formulate theories which are applicable to a real-world environment. You think "poop can cause sepsis!" and "sepsis can kill!", and this is as far as your reasoning goes.

Also, re: ad hominems. The phrase does not mean what you think it means. "Ad hominem" is a logical fallacy wherein you attack a person's character, rather than dealing directly with a person's argument. I have already dealt with your argument, systematically demolishing it like a fart knife demolishes a bear; calling you a "gun nut" (assuming that is an attack on your character? What makes you think it is?) is simply embellishment, and a segue into my next question: why, given that you are a gun nut, are you not thinking your weapon-strategies through more carefully?

To put it another way, you are not wrong BECAUSE you are a gun nut. You are wrong, AND you are a gun nut. Those are two entirely different sets of propositions; the former is fallacious, the latter is not.

""For someone without the right access to medicine" Yeah, and that "someone" consists of: bears, sharks, that's about it. "

Really? So every person on the planet has easy access to medicine? Even during the majority of human history that didn't have antibiotics? That's quite a revelation, Homer.

"'People', especially 'people' who have been stabbed by a fat man wielding a poop-coated knife, are not going to sit around and wait for their wound to get infected."

Don't call yourself fat, Homer, you're just festively plump. Also, you're making the assumption that (a) they're able to walk in spite of their injuries, and (b) they are anywhere near civilization. Assumptions seem to be your bread and butter.

"They will go to the ER. They will get their wound treated, one way or another. We are not living in the magical bygone days of 1736, where nobody had access to sterile medical facilities."

You seem to have purposely ignored the fact we aren't talking about only modern times, and even if we were relegating this discussion to such a time there's no guarantee they would be able to get anywhere before bleeding out, fainting, or dying of septic shock.

"I get it, though. I understand why you said what you said. You see, Gmork, this is a common trap that armchair warriors (especially those of the gun nut variety) tend to fall into. The trap is this: you have failed to take into account the actions of the opposing party."

More ad-hominem. Also, you are making yet more assumptions about the person being able to travel to any degree after sustaining injuries. The cut could easily be to the hamstring, or they could be in far too much pain to go anywhere. There's a plethora of cases you're pointedly pretending don't exist as a possibility. Least of which is being too far away, even if they're able to travel, to get to help before bleeding out.

"Like a Bullshido practitioner who thinks he can disarm a mugger by using an overly-specific karate throw, you lack both the good sense and the practical experience necessary to formulate theories which are applicable to a real-world environment."

None of this applies to me in any way whatsoever. You're tilting at windmills again.

"You think "poop can cause sepsis!" and "sepsis can kill!", and this is as far as your reasoning goes."

Another assumption, and completely wrong. Again, if you think that's the entirety of the argument you're being delusional or deliberately ignoring a ton of factors.

"Also, re: ad hominems. The phrase does not mean what you think it means. "Ad hominem" is a logical fallacy wherein you attack a person's character, rather than dealing directly with a person's argument."

That perfectly describes what you've been doing.

" I have already dealt with your argument, systematically demolishing it like a fart knife demolishes a bear; calling you a "gun nut" (assuming that is an attack on your character? What makes you think it is?)"

You've neither demolished my argument nor provided any argument that a blatant insult is not an attack on one's character - especially when that insult attempts to paint the other person with an ideology they do not even believe in, because you find fault in it. That's a pretty cut-and-dry example of ad-hominem, the same as if I called you a "mincing pedantic weeaboo". How you've managed to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to say that it's not is rather baffling and a bit disappointing, as I had always pegged you as somewhat intelligent.

"and a segue into my next question: why, given that you are a gun nut, are you not thinking your weapon-strategies through more carefully?"

Faulty premise. I am not a gun nut and never have been. I'm not sure why you continue to posit such nonsense, it's been systematically demolished every time you've brought it up, quite unlike the argument I was making in this thread.

"To put it another way, you are not wrong BECAUSE you are a gun nut. You are wrong, AND you are a gun nut."

And you are wrong on both counts. And you're an oblivious troll.

Five stars for arguing about poop knives. I miss you EH.