They were triangular for ease of manufacture, they were also stronger that way. They didn’t need to be particularly slicey, they were pretty much just for pointy stabbies. So a triangular blade would do.
3 things. First it’s a myth that triangular bayonets are banned under the geneva conventions. Only serrated bayonets are illegal. Secondly it wouldn’t make sense to ban something in war because it’s “more lethal”. That’s like the whole point of war. Serrated blades are banned because they cause undue suffering. Third, the geneva conventions only apply to humanitarian treatment at war. Governments are free to do what they want to their citizens according to international law. It’s why tear gas is banned for warfare via the geneva conventions yet police can gas the shit out of protestors.
Nitpick: the Geneva conventions apply for all kinds of conflicts, including domestic ones. However, tear gas is allowed for riot control in policing.
The reason it’s banned in war is because if the other side sees you using chemical weapons, they might respond with their own, but the bad ones, like nerve gas. In riot control, that isn’t going to happen.
Yes, it was the “undue suffering” component that I was thinking of. Thanks for the clarification. What was the reason to do away with them then? They went to flat blades, didn’t they? Not sure if bayonets are even current issue for armies any longer. Are they?
O please. Get a grip. You’ll get yourself shot. Or you’ll shot a cop, and give an excuse for even more violence and state repression. Individuals can’t fight their way out of repressive regimes.
Get a camera, set it to record to a remote location, preferable a data center in another country. What we really need are tech volunteers to start setting up these types of digital cameras in ethnic neighborhoods to document what is happening.
If a masked person enters my property and refuses to show identification, I will absolutely be practicing self-defense.
Do it just like the Founding Fathers intended:
TIL bayonet wounds are triangle shaped.
They were triangular for ease of manufacture, they were also stronger that way. They didn’t need to be particularly slicey, they were pretty much just for pointy stabbies. So a triangular blade would do.
I believe the triangular bayonets are against the Geneva Convention rules of war now chiefly because of their lethality.
3 things. First it’s a myth that triangular bayonets are banned under the geneva conventions. Only serrated bayonets are illegal. Secondly it wouldn’t make sense to ban something in war because it’s “more lethal”. That’s like the whole point of war. Serrated blades are banned because they cause undue suffering. Third, the geneva conventions only apply to humanitarian treatment at war. Governments are free to do what they want to their citizens according to international law. It’s why tear gas is banned for warfare via the geneva conventions yet police can gas the shit out of protestors.
Nitpick: the Geneva conventions apply for all kinds of conflicts, including domestic ones. However, tear gas is allowed for riot control in policing.
The reason it’s banned in war is because if the other side sees you using chemical weapons, they might respond with their own, but the bad ones, like nerve gas. In riot control, that isn’t going to happen.
Yes, it was the “undue suffering” component that I was thinking of. Thanks for the clarification. What was the reason to do away with them then? They went to flat blades, didn’t they? Not sure if bayonets are even current issue for armies any longer. Are they?
You’ve run into the answer here: bayonets simply aren’t a big deal in warfare anymore, so it doesn’t overly matter what they’re shaped like.
The US aren’t concerned with conventions, are they? I mean they use cluster ammunition, depleted uranium ammunition etc…
Good thing we aren’t an army.
O please. Get a grip. You’ll get yourself shot. Or you’ll shot a cop, and give an excuse for even more violence and state repression. Individuals can’t fight their way out of repressive regimes.
Get a camera, set it to record to a remote location, preferable a data center in another country. What we really need are tech volunteers to start setting up these types of digital cameras in ethnic neighborhoods to document what is happening.
Document it for whom and what?
Where did you hear this? You are flat-out wrong, thousands of examples prove this statement to be totally untrue.
Also, there’s usually much more to it than simply fighting, it’s rarely “peaceful protest” or “fighting” alone.
The same army we would be fighting got their asses handed to them by insurgents in Vietnam and Afghanistan
But they can film their way out of one?
Happy to lend tech expertise where needed, let me know
If an unidentified masked person is harassing me on my property I’m not just going to let it happen but make sure it is recorded.