this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
681 points (99.0% liked)
Greentext
6358 readers
1443 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This guy thinking real life works by rpg rules where blocking or being hit slowly raises your defense stat.
If this idiot had gone from... a .22 pellet ... skipped over .22short, skipped over .22lr... and gone to .223?
Thats a fucking necked, rifle cartidge.
Something like 15x the energy in ft-lbs or joules than a .22 short.
He would have blown a good chunk of his leg off.
... Anybody ever see photos of the aftermath of when a SWAT squad is stacked up prior to a door breach, and one of em accidentally fires a round into the back of their buddy's knee?
You lose your fucking leg, amputated at the knee.
I could find and NSFW spoiler post the images I've seen, but I do not want to look up nor see that shit again.
It wasn't 223, check the post again. His goal was 223 but he went to the hospital from 22 short.
... Yes, that is why I said:
Did you not read the second sentence?
Oh I guess I'm confused how your first sentence is related to the rest of your post?
Sorry, but that "if" is doing a lot of work when the rest of it seems like you're building a strawman to beat.
-.-
The first sentence is a general description of this guy's approach to reality.
Everything after that is an explanation of a hypothetical scenario, meant to further illustrate the danger of this way of thinking.
...
It isn't a strawman.
A strawman is when you intentionally distort a person's argent or beliefs into a bastardized version that is easier to argue against or criticize.
Neither is this an attempt to... slander this person by spreading a false version of the story.
He obviously did not shoot a .223 into his leg at point blank, I never said he did, I in fact made it explicitly clear that this had not happened with the sentence I quoted.
If he had actually shot himself with a .223... best case scenario, he misses bone, and loses about a golfball of flesh.
If he had fired a .223 into his own leg and hit bone, the bone would have shattered and then torn up even more of muscle tissue... possibly necessitating an amputation.
And in really any of these scenarios, with any caliber, he's lucky he didn't hit his femoral or other major artery, because he could have bled to unconsciousness in 15 minutes or less, and then died.
...
But anyway, see how I used 'if,' in those above sentences about hypotheticals?
Yes, 'if' does in fact greatly modify a sentence's meaning... that is how English works.
I am not building a strawman to defeat.
I am laying out a hypothetical that shows what could have happened if his leg shot with a .22 short managed to be a through and through, or not cause him so much pain as to convince him to stop trying to buff his natural bullet resistance stat irl.
...
Entirely serious question: Have you not graduated high school, or maybe English is not your first language?
You don't seem to have very good reading comprehension; you are missing words and unable to parse a somewhat, but not very, complex sentence structure.
"His way of thinking wouldn't work because if he skipped a bunch of steps in his process, it would blow off his leg" isn't the great argument you think it is.
Ok, yep, you can't read.
At no point did I attempt to make an argument going into why his way of thinking is fundamentally flawed.
I simply gave an example of what would happen if he had continued on his given path.
I'm sorry, but do you require an anatomy/biology/physics lesson as the only acceptable way to clown on an idiotic 4chan post?
Why do you insist on interpreting what I said as an 'argument', as if it ... isn't common fucking knowledge that shooting yourself with a gun is an extremely stupid idea?
... Are you the OP from this 4chan post?
Do you need to have it broken down, step by step, why shooting yourself with a gun, is going to permanently injure you, likely quite severely?
That there is no evidence to support the idea that shooting yourself with progressively higher caliber/grain coint cartridges is going to result in you gaining some kind of resistance to bullets?
No, I mean the guy in the post demonstrates it pretty clearly. Going from 22 pellets to 22 short was basically going from "this won't maim you" to "this could kill you at close range". Could he have used something else between those energies to further develop a callous tough enough to stop a 22 short? Ehh probably not, but going on about how a 223 will blow off his leg isn't a good argument for why this method won't work. It's either a strawman or a non sequitor depending how you present it.
It's like you're making this argument: Paper will never stop a 223 bullet and here's why. 10 layers stopped a small pellet sure, and 50 layers stopped a 22 pellet. But if you just make it 100 layers and shoot it with a 223 then it will explode because a 223 is at least 100 times more powerful and that's only double the paper! No amount of paper could stop a 223.
Ok, you are apparently just a moron.
Again... the dude in the original post states that psrt of his original plan was to work his way up to a .223.
If you missed that part of the original image, please go look at and read it again.
Here, let me highlight it for you, as you struggle with reading comprehension:
But oh wait, maybe you just forgot that you already knew that, when you kicked off this whole comment chain by saying:
I have no idea why you keep insisting I am making some kind of strawman or non sequitor argument by just explaining what would happen if he just went to carrying out that part of his plan.
Again, I am simply describing what would have happened if he had indeed shot himself with a .223 round.
You have now looped your 'criticism' of my comment all the way back around to its origin, seemingly entirely missing the point and/or forgetting your own initial 'criticism'.
My original comment did not attempt to explain why rpg style damage resistance building up by taking damage over time does not work in real life.
Because it is nonsensical, and obviously nonsensical. Human skin 'damage resistance' does not menaningfully grow as a 'stat' from any kind of damage when the energies of the magnitude in firerarm rounds are what are being considered.
But you seem incapable of reading it any other way, despite me at no point using any kind of phrase like 'here's why real life doesn't work like Skyrim'.
...
But here, because I am autistic, here's your full middle school physics level breakdown of exactly how dumb OP image's idea is:
A .22 pellet air gun round carries about 5 to 15 ft-lbs of energy leaving the barrel.
A .22 short bullet from a firearm carries about 80 +/- 30 ft-lbs of energy leaving the barrel, though this will vary by the exact round and barrel length.
A .22 lr bullet carries 130 to 200 ft-lbs of energy, though this will vary by the exact round and barrel length.
A .223 bullet carries about 950 to 1350 ft-lbs of energy though this will vary by the exact round and barrel length.
...
Human skin, on the other hand, just has a hard limit of how many psi it can resist before breaking, about 100.
A callous may add maybe up to 10 to that number, but this is negligible with any firearm cartridge at point blank range.
Callouses are also highly localized... and this idiot was obviously shooting himself (with pellets) in multiple distinct locations, as can be seen by the variety of different wound marks all over his leg.
Because all calibers mentioned in the OP image are either the same or very close to each other, the ft-lbs of energy is being applied to human skin/flesh over a very close to the same amount of surface area, so you don't really need to take into account the potentially variable surface area to get a psi figure, and can instead just use ft-lbs as a decently accurate comparative measure of destructiveness.
The .22 refers to the diameter of the pellet/round, in inches, plug that in with the area of a circle formula (A = pi * (d/2)^2) and with a bit of rounding for simplicity, you get about 0.038 square inches.
Because this idiot is shooting himself point blank, the projectile travel distance is negligible, so you end up with Energy of Projectile / Area of Impact.
Because I am doing this in Imperial instead of Metric, lets just say all these .22 projectiles are roughly .22 in^3 volume... now you can do:
(ft-lbs of projectile energy / 12) / 0.038 in^3
~= impact psi
Because the two other numbers here are constant and do not really change for everything from a .22 pellet up to a .223 cartridge... we can just say that:
ft-lbs * 2.2 ~= psi.
As you can see, the max of 15 ft-lbs from a pellet turns into 33 psi, under the skin breakage threshold.
Every single bullet the OP mentions, on the other hand, exceeds to vastly exceeds the max skin breakage threshold of 110 psi...
.22 short is about 180 psi
.22 lr is about 350 psi
.223 is about 2600 psi
... This is all middle school physics and math, apparently you either haven't yet taken those classes or did not do well in them.
...
All of these rounds, and the pellet, are capable of being stopped by a certain number of sheets of paper, at certain ranges.
Even at literally 0 distance from the barrel of a gun, if you put enough phone books in front of an AR15 and fire a round, a certain number of phone books will stop a .223 round.
You can easily see this yourself without even leaving your seat:
There are many videos of such tests on youtube, 'how many X will it take to stop Y cartridge?' is a fairly popular video format... phone books often feature in such videos, as they are relatively cheap.
Sorry bud, it sounds like you think I believe someone could train their body to become bullet proof. That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying your argument is fallacious. Your conclusion is correct, but your argument fails.
Also, you can't just convert impact energy to pressure like that. I'm not familiar with the equation you're using (is it just energy divided by the volume of a 0.22" sphere?), but I do know that impact is much more complex than that. It's going to depend on both the bullet and the impact surface. Bullet geometry and material will change things, for example hollow points vs full metal jacket. Then there's the impact surface, it's hardness, strength, ductility, even viscoplasticity (materials can deform in different ways at the really high strain rates you get in an impact event). Think about the way Kevlar armor works. It dissapates some of the energy by stretching and breaking the strands of Kevlar and it reduces the impact force on a body by spreading it over a larger area and slowing the bullet over a longer distance. The person wearing the Kevlar armor still gets much of that energy delivered to their body.
You don't get it.
Again and again I tell you this and you do not listen:
I was not in my original comment making an argument as to the mechanics of why real world skin resistance to bullets does not follow video game logic.
I was providing an example of what would happen if this idiot had shot himself with a .223, which he said he planned on doing.
An example... and an argument... are not the same thing.
I literally do not know how to explain this to you in other words.
...
As to my more recent breakdown:
You can in fact do a reasonably accurate approximation of the actual forces and figures involved in the way I just did.
Terminal ballistics wound theoreticians did similar, if not exactly the rough model I just gave you for about 70 years untill computers allowed for more complex materials modelling...
... and untill ballistics gelatin tests with high speed cameras became a popular way of assessing total maximum wound cavity volume, speed of expansion of the wound cavity volume, end result wound cavity volume, shape and size of wound cavity, tendency of a bullet to tumble or break apart or expand, velocities/ranges at which commonly struck bones result in a bullet that stick into a bone vs bounce off of it vs shatter it and now the bone fragments themselves cause wound cavities etc etc.
...
.22 in^3 of volume is a reasonable approximation of the volume of the projectile because while yes, the actual rounds are rounded, lenghtened, conical forms, not perfect spheres... doing all the math to account for the exact volume of each round would take a lot more time, and would barely change the end result of the actual volume you end up with.
The impact surface is constant in this scenario (human skin), so ... no need to worry about that as a variable.
The velocities involved are so extreme that the progressive onset of changing surface area actually being impacted... is negligible, again, against an unarmored target of human skin.
You can do all that math, and end up with a 0.00x% more accurate value than what I ended up with. It doesn't matter, its a rounding error.
Nobody makes .22 hollow points or jhps or armor piercing rounds, nor does anyone make those for .22 airgun pellets. Those only exist for 5.56/.223, but again, the point of this is more recent approximation of mine is to just illustrate the relative magnitude of energy involved between the 4 rounds the OP mentions... because that on its own is sufficient to demonstrate the point.
(Maybe he could have shot himself with .22 ratshot, which is basically a tiny shotgun like round for .22, and that might not have penetrated too deep into his skin...but most people don't even know that round exists)
...
Human skin breaks at about 100 PSI, pellet guns do not output over that threshold, all firearms do output over that threshold at point blank range, shooting yourself or otherwise doing something to your skin does not increase that PSI breakage point number in any meaningful way.
That right there is all you need to show the folly of the 'theory' of gaining bullet resistance via repeated 'exposure.'
...
You don't need an astoundingly precise model here, a middle school level model is sufficient to illustrate the point, I am not designing bullets.
Ductility, viscoplasticity, hardness, kevlar, deformation speed and patterns... none of this needs to be considered: the scenario is a dumbass shooting himself at point blank range into his own totally exposed leg.
A third of your comment here is about how kevlar works... yep thats neat, I might have gone into that if this guy was shooting himself to test his own homemade kevlar armor... but he isn't, so it isn't relevant.
...
The scenario we are dealing with here is constrained by the context of the post.
Sure, modelling impact effects for all bullets, with all kinds of targets and armors... at different ranges... sure, yep, a full, highly accurate, universal model of bullet wounding effects is quite complicated.
But that's not what we are talking about here, we are talking about a specific scenario with only a few variables.
We are not designing the ballistics damage model of a MilSim like Arma Reforger or Gray Zone, we are mocking an idiot on 4chan, sitting in his computer chair, shooting himself in the leg.
Even if we were designing a milsim quality ballistics model, let me tell you: I have actually done that in my spare time a few times, and what you quickly realize is that a whole lot of very complex calculations can be massively simplified, and you end up with 99.99% accuracy fidelity model in 99.99% of scenarios that actually occur in gameplay, for an underlying model that runs 10x faster and thus has less network and physics calc lag, so now you can support more players or npcs, larger levels.
So many of these 'be 100% accurate to real life' calculations to include all kinds of realworld effects... end up having a very, very negligable effect on that end result of 'how much should this damage the player'... but they add massive computational overhead to your game.