No-scoping, Silliness with sniper rifles Options

[KarmaInferno]

If you are talking about force (as opposed to momentum) than no, certainly not. O(v^2)...

And this after I specifically noted that I'm not talking about how much total pushing force that the bullet posesses, but only the amount that gets transferred to the human body on impact.

..and when somebody dies from a shot wound the bullet itself is not responsible for the death, but the blood loss or damage it caused...does that mean bullets don't kill people?

Well, TECHNICALLY most coroners DO actually put "cause of death" as "blood loss" in cases where someone has bled out.

But that aside, your analogy isn't the same thing as the bullet knockdown thing. The bullet killing the person is entirely the cause of the bullet. There was no existing condition it exacerbated. It's not like the guy had a hole 90% of the way through his skin and the bullet just opene up the last 10%.

I'll use another analogy of my own. Let's say you have a barrel full of water. If you poured in another cup, technically I guess you could state that you made the barrel overflow. But the main reason it overflowed was because it was full already. If it had not been full there is no way that cup of water you poured in by itself could overflow it.

Heck, let's just forget about the amount of kinetic transfer for a moment. Even if we assume 100% kinetic transfer, there is at MOST the same amount of force hitting the target as there is pushing back on the shooter. Most shooters aren't getting knocked on their asses every time they pull the trigger. A bullet might provide that last "cup" of unbalancing force enough to drop someone already unbalanced, but it's not going to knock down by itself.

This assuming the bullet's force is striking in a manner that somehow increases the unbalance, and not getting simply negated because it's pushing in the opposite direction the target is moving


-np

[Smokeskin]

Sure, just like there are many documented cases of people who took a single shot and basically were out before hitting the ground. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

So sometimes a guy drops from first shot, and that leads you to believe it is a good tactic to bet your life on it?

The question is which of these two extremes is closer to being the exception. Given that such discussions always yield the same two or three "he just kept coming" stories and that the standard tactic for such confrontations still is a double tap instead of "run and hide" I'd say the answer is kinda obvious, but oh well...

The standard tactics isn't double tap in that situation. It is "keep shooting". And I can't imagine there is any shooter receiving tactical training that isn't taught that even lethal wounds will often take 10+ seconds to actually incapacitate the target. You shoot as he charges you, preferably while moving sideways and/or behind an obstacle, and if you can't get out of the way, prepare to receive the charge. Saying the standard tactic is "just double tap" is sooo wrong.

I admit I don't know how the German police is trained, but what you're describing goes against everything I ever heard of.

And so that Smokeskin is satisfied, here's some annecdotal evidence: The German police used FMJ rounds until ~2000 [...] Anyway, in 2000 the police union and several politicians were lobbying heavily for new ammo, with several examples of the old rounds failing to stop someone, or innocent bystanders getting hit due to overpenetration...but the interesting thing is that it always were the same two or three stories making the rounds. Even when talking to officers you just heard the same stories.
Now if the unstoppable zombie charge is the rule, how come even with the crappy old FMJ rounds there so few known cases? Granted, we have less than 20 people lethally shot by police each year and German FOI laws are a joke, but if dropping someone with FMJ rounds from a hnadgun was that hard there should still be far more known cases.

Who says there aren't more known cases? Just because the 3 best stories gets presented in the news, that doesn't mean there aren't others. And how often is the police charged by armed criminals?

You can't draw conclusions from what stories the news choose to quote. You could also wonder WHY the police was lobbying for harder hitting bullets? Because they're guncrazed maniacs? Because they think too many of their targets survived? Or maybe they were observing real problems that it took too long for their targets to go down?

[Smokeskin]

And force is certainly not O(v^2) - force is totally unreliant on the magnitude of v, this is pretty much the basis of the whole moving frame of reference thing. I think you're confusing kinetic energy and force?

And if a body with a certain kinetic energy collides with something else (without deformation and anything) the energy does what...?

Force would be F = m dv/dt. If the round simply gets slowed to zero velocity, this means that a bullet at 300 m/s would result in 50% more force than the same bullet at 200 m/s.

But v^2 is 2.25 times higher for the fast bullet, 125% more! F is clearly not O(v^2).

You can't make your "F is O(v^2)" work. It doesn't fit with the formulas. F is O(dv/dt).

You could make a case for force being O(v) under certain assumptions (like end velocity 0), but O(v^2) doesn't hold.

Have you even looked at a single formula in attempting to defend your false claim?

[Waya]

So sometimes a guy drops from first shot, and that leads you to believe it is a good tactic to bet your life on it?



The standard tactics isn't double tap in that situation. It is "keep shooting".

Because Sengir isn't going to look down a few lines when it hurts his myth of a reliable single shot stop, it should be pointed out that the standard tactic is more "keep shooting while moving laterally until the threat is neutralized." Neutralized of course has different meanings based on the situation.

[Sengir]

So sometimes a guy drops from first shot, and that leads you to believe it is a good tactic to bet your life on it?

I wonder how many shots the average strawman takes before htting the ground...

The standard tactics isn't double tap in that situation. It is "keep shooting".

If you claim that the relentless zombie assault is the standard case was true that still sounds like a really stupid plan. If the target takes >10s to stop charging you the smart tactic would be "shoot him once or twice and then RUN LIKE HELL until he bleeds out".

Who says there aren't more known cases?

You brought up annecdotal evidence ("the guy in the video keeps standing, I'm right"), so here you have annecdotal evidence, too. If you have a randomised double-blind study, bring it on...

Just because the 3 best stories gets presented in the news, that doesn't mean there aren't others. And how often is the police charged by armed criminals?

Which part of "Even when talking to officers" is unclear to you?

You could also wonder WHY the police was lobbying for harder hitting bullets? Because they're guncrazed maniacs? Because they think too many of their targets survived? Or maybe they were observing real problems that it took too long for their targets to go down?

Oh great, a true believer...


AS far as the physics go:
The work-energy theorem tells us that the work required to slow a moving projectile with mass m and speed v₁ down to v₂ equals the difference in kinetic energy:

W = E₂ - E₁ = 1/2m (v₂² - v₁²)

If we want to stop the projectile completely this gives us

W = 1/2m (0² - v₁²)

Finding out about the relation between W and F is left as an excercise to the reader...

[Waya]

Since I happened to come across it again:

http://webpages.charter.net/riffmonger/pho...fectiveness.pdf

That's a non-classified FBI document on handgun effectiveness. It's an interesting read in general, but the pertinent part is on page 12.

[Yerameyahu]

Wikipedia incorporates some of that information, but not nearly enough. Still, you can find all manner of data about the effect a bullet makes on the person: impact, holes, cavities, something that amounts to 'time of stagger', etc.

[Smokeskin]

If you claim that the relentless zombie assault is the standard case was true that still sounds like a really stupid plan. If the target takes >10s to stop charging you the smart tactic would be "shoot him once or twice and then RUN LIKE HELL until he bleeds out".

Maybe you think it is a stupid plan. Nonetheless, keep shooting while moving sideways and/or getting obstacles between you and him is believed to be the best tactic. Are you seriously going to keep up this "the entire tactical community is stupid and I'm smart" act?

AS far as the physics go:
The work-energy theorem tells us that the work required to slow a moving projectile with mass m and speed v₁ down to v₂ equals the difference in kinetic energy:

W = E₂ - E₁ = 1/2m (v₂² - v₁²)

If we want to stop the projectile completely this gives us

W = 1/2m (0² - v₁²)

Finding out about the relation between W and F is left as an excercise to the reader...

You are thinking of W = F d?

Apparently you assume displacement is not correlated to velocity. This is not correct.

You are forgetting that we are looking at the average force over the same time period. With a uniform force over the same time period, the distance needed to slow the bullet becomes O(v).

Thus while W is O(v^2), and F and d are both O(v).


Just for fun, let us assume you were correct. That would mean that F = m dv/dt was wrong, as that was the basis of my calculation! I mean, really, do you ever think before you post?

[Sengir]

Maybe you think it is a stupid plan.

You know what the word "if" means? Try googling "reductio ad absurdum"...

[Banaticus]

Most shooters aren't getting knocked on their asses every time they pull the trigger.

This is because 1) the mass of the gun is incredibly huge compared to the mass of the bullet, 2) the force acting on the gun is partially redirected so that it isn't perfectly opposite the force acting on the bullet.

What do you mean by O(v) -- no specific physics term comes to mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCzD5uhSViY -- revisited Knockback? Probably not. Knockdown? Think about what happens when a person gets tasered: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SUDGWFVw4 When you take a good amount of damage, I have no problem with a person falling down. I think the knockdown rules as written are just fine.

[Yerameyahu]

Ditto. Also, bored of the fighting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If you need to tone it down in *your* game, add 1 to the number of boxes required or something; remove it altogether if it's a problem. The game is not real, nor even realistic. It's an abstraction loosely based on reality and movies. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[KarmaInferno]

This is because 1) the mass of the gun is incredibly huge compared to the mass of the bullet, 2) the force acting on the gun is partially redirected so that it isn't perfectly opposite the force acting on the bullet.

I'll restate.

The amount of force transferred to a person by a bullet is NOT sufficient by itself to overcome that person's inertia. Even if you multiply that force by 10 it would not be enough.

You mention the mass of the gun. Well, the mass of the target is a LOT more than the mass of a gun.

If you see someone fall down after being shot, he is NOT falling down because the bullet knocked him on his ass.

He is falling down either because of critical system damage, or he was already unbalanced and the shock of being perforated tripped him up.

(Or possibly he mentally can't deal with being shot and his knees go weak, in which case he's also possibly curled up in a fetal position crying with a spreading yellow stain on his pants.)


-np

[Whipstitch]

Personally, I like the spirit of what the knockdown rules are trying to accomplish even if I don't particularly like the execution. After all, one of the commonly cited flaws of hit point systems is the way characters can remain so bloody effective right up until the point they keel over and die-- I like the idea of characters being nearly or very nearly incapacitated without necessarily being unconscious. Wound modifiers combined with the Body+Will test to stand back up while wounded go a long way towards rectifying that situation, of course, but there's still the weird outlier situations out there when characters are suffering bad penalties but never actually get knock downed so they still continue to function pretty well in their area of expertise.

For example, I once had a Low Pain Tolerance Elf Samurai facing serious penalties due to a combination of having been beaten earlier in the session and later being exposed to tear gas for a few combat turns. If he had been knocked down at any point, he literally would have been unable to get back up without using Edge or getting help from an ally, but since he never actually got knocked back down by any one single attack, he was still tossing around 8 dice to shoot and still could move around just fine as long as he didn't try a sprint test. Now, it'd hardly bother me if toughness had been something in this character's wheelhouse, but like I said, he had LPT and was using Will as a dump stat-- The player actually sorta saved the day from a role playing angle on this and willingly had his character get the hell out of Dodge rather than keep fighting although he actually had a pretty decent chance of winning. Now, I recognize that it was an extreme situation and so I made a point not to jump any real conclusions based on it alone. But at the same time, I know I'd be loathe to ease up on knockdown any without also coming up with some sort of system to make characters pass some kind of gut check to at least not be dissuaded from moving too fast right away when they're pretty dang messed up. I'd have done it already but I'm not so sure what would be the best way to go about it-- I have a healthy fear of unintended consequences.

[Smokeskin]

You know what the word "if" means? Try googling "reductio ad absurdum"...

You forget that the established tactic for handling someone rushing with a knife is based on the attacker not dropping instantly from the shots. That's one of the reasons you're supposed to move sideways and/or behind obstacles. I believe the same as the tactical community. You believe that under that assumption, the tactical community have reached the wrong conclusion and are doing something "stupid" instead of your suggestion of a smart plan.

But you quite well displayed your ignorance on these matters when you said the preferred tactic was a double tap, which it is not. I guess you think this is a good dodge.

That you fail to reply to the physics part, I take that as silence signifying agreement. Does it change your understanding of the knockback issue that the force from the bullet is only the square root of what you thought it was?

The report Waya posted also had an interesting comparison - the physics tells us that the impact from a .45 equals that of a 10 pound weight dropped less than 1½ inches! Do you really expect that to topple anyone?

[Smokeskin]

This is because 1) the mass of the gun is incredibly huge compared to the mass of the bullet, 2) the force acting on the gun is partially redirected so that it isn't perfectly opposite the force acting on the bullet.

1) if the mass of the gun is incredibly huge compared to the bullet, what do you think of the mass of target compared to the bullet? Humongously huge?

2) That is impossible. In the direction of the bullet's travel the component of the forces on the gun will always be of the same magnitude as the force on the bullet.

What do you mean by O(v) -- no specific physics term comes to mind.

It means "proportional to". It is generally only used when you don't know the relations and formulas, but can derive or estimate the proportions. I've never seen it used in physics, especially not in simple mechanics like this, but if someone doesn't know the formulas, I can see the benefits of using O - it effectively conceals his lack of knowledge and makes it harder to present counterarguments.

[Sengir]

That's one of the reasons you're supposed to move sideways and/or behind obstacles.

Oh yes, that's totally going to stop someone whose movement is not inhibited at all...just move sideways, and because humans run on rails the attacker won't be able to correct his course. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It's a simple bit of evolution: If your claim that the average shootout looks like a Romero movie was true, most people who tried to hold their ground against a charging attacker should be dead. Moving sideways? Pointless, the other guy would just adjust his course. Obstacles? Unless we are walking about wire obstacles, ten seconds would be plenty of time to get over one. Good old folding shovel? WOuld only be useful if you decapitate your opponents, otherwise they'll just keep hitting you and make you one of the undead, too.

The report Waya posted also had an interesting comparison - the physics tells us that the impact from a .45 equals that of a 10 pound weight dropped less than 1½ inches! Do you really expect that to topple anyone?

I'm not going to repeat the "human body vs. rigid structures moving on rails" again, since you obviously chose to ignore that little caveat

BTW, I think the most interesting sentence from that report is this: There is no valied, scientific analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or being pursued to date.


@Banaticus:

What do you mean by O(v) -- no specific physics term comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

[Smokeskin]

Oh yes, that's totally going to stop someone whose movement is not inhibited at all...just move sideways, and because humans run on rails the attacker won't be able to correct his course. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[...]

Moving sideways? Pointless, the other guy would just adjust his course. Obstacles? Unless we are walking about wire obstacles, ten seconds would be plenty of time to get over one.

You obviously not only have no combat training, but no concept of movement either.

Two experiments for you:

1) Try sprinting straight ahead, then try the same while moving in a tight circle, as if you were tracking someone moving sideways. You'll see you're MUCH slower when you have to turn.
2) Try catching someone on the other side of a table - you can jump on the table, and you need to slap him on the torso. Not so easy, is it?

It's a simple bit of evolution: If your claim that the average shootout looks like a Romero movie was true, most people who tried to hold their ground against a charging attacker should be dead.

As we've been trying to tell you, the standard tactic is not to stand your ground - evolution has happened, people are trained to move sideways or get behind obstacles, and otherwise be prepared to engage in melee. You are NOT taught that you can stop someone in their tracks by shooting them. You are the one ignoring the experiences from law enforcement.

I'm not going to repeat the "human body vs. rigid structures moving on rails" again, since you obviously chose to ignore that little caveat

No, we've been through that several times. You just chose to ignore those of us who from martial arts or sports know that something as weak as a bullet, or even a punch which carries 10 times the momentum, simply won't topple you, especially not on center mass. You've also said "walking is a highly complicated affair", which is complete bull - humans are very adept at walking and running.

Good old folding shovel? WOuld only be useful if you decapitate your opponents, otherwise they'll just keep hitting you

Blows to the head can certainly knock people out reliably. Blows to the body cannot. Here you're relying on emotional fainting or other reactions to pain for immediate incapacitation (unless you manage to break their back).

BTW, I think the most interesting sentence from that report is this: There is no valied, scientific analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or being pursued to date.

You misunderstand what is said here. There is no way to determine the significance of ammunition types, hit locations, etc. It is however abundantly clear that immediate incapacitation is extremely unreliable with small arms.



Two questions I would very much still like you to answer
a) You used to think that force was O(v^2). As I have shown you, it is O(v). This is a drastic reduction, the forces involved are obviously far smaller than you originally thought - has this not changed your opinion of what happens to someone struck to a bullet
b) You think that entire tactical community, what law enforcement officers are taught, FBI training manuals, they're all wrong. What are you basing this on? That in the media discussions about new ammo for the German police, people only talked about the same 3 cases of people not stopping immediatetly when shot?

[Sengir]

You obviously not only have no combat training, but no concept of movement either.

I think I'll just tell that to the next guy who's trying to tackle me even when I'm sidestepping: you can't do that, that's impossible, you have no concept of movement (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

You've also said "walking is a highly complicated affair", which is complete bull - humans are very adept at walking and running.

And the next time somebody tells me the human brain is complicated I'll tell him that this is complete bull - every human has one and knows how to use it, that clearly proves it can't be complicated, because...well...uhm...why, actually?

b) You think that entire tactical community, what law enforcement officers are taught, FBI training manuals, they're all wrong

I'm not the one saying their tactics are nothing but suicide because the average engagement involves the Living Dead charging without even noticing the shots fired at them...

What are you basing this on? That in the media discussions about new ammo for the German police, people only talked about the same 3 cases of people not stopping immediatetly when shot?

So the answer to my question "Which part of 'Even when talking to officers' is unclear to you?" obviously is "all of it"...

[Smokeskin]

I think I'll just tell that to the next guy who's trying to tackle me even when I'm sidestepping: you can't do that, that's impossible, you have no concept of movement (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I must say, this is typically you. You seem to have no ability to critically examine your beliefs. I asked you to try it, not to make a snide uninformed reply. If you did go out with a friend, stand at least 21 feet apart, and then try to see the difference between charging someone standing still and someone sidestepping, you'd clearly experience the big difference when the attacker can't build momentum.

How about the table experiment? Do you have a snide remark for that, or did you on this issue become convinced that perhaps it really is difficult to reach someone across a table?

And the next time somebody tells me the human brain is complicated I'll tell him that this is complete bull - every human has one and knows how to use it, that clearly proves it can't be complicated, because...well...uhm...why, actually?

Maybe my brain is complicated from the viewpoint of a neurologist or an AI researcher. But I, like all other humans, find in completely trivial to operate it. I don't really care about how much bio-mechanical modelling it takes to describe walking and keeping your balance, humans do it effortlessly. Walking is just not a "highly complicated" affair for humans.

So the answer to my question "Which part of 'Even when talking to officers' is unclear to you?" obviously is "all of it"...

Because they also mention the best examples when you talk to them? That most officers haven't reviewed all shooting incidents and only know of the most extreme cases that REALLY highlights that people don't drop?

I'm not the one saying their tactics are nothing but suicide because the average engagement involves the Living Dead charging without even noticing the shots fired at them...

Sigh. I know that YOU think the tactic is to just stand your ground and double tap. That is just not true. Police are not taught to double tap or stand their ground. They're taught to keep shooting, sidestep or get behind obstacles, and receive the charge.

Step 1 is you realizing that your "stand and double tap" is just that, an idea of yours. Once you have learned about the actual tactics taught, Step 2 is that you explain why people are taught to sidestep (you think this doesn't have any effect) and why people are taught to not assume their shots instantly incapacitates.

But ok, that's one question answered - you apparently still think that police tactics are based on shots immediatedly incapacitating attackers.

How about the other one? The forces involved when getting hit by a bullet is MUCH lower than you thought - doesn't this affect your opinion on how a target is affected by it? Are you really just going "well I thought it was v^2, turns out it was just v, but that doesn't really have any effect anyway"?

[Angelone]

Sengir, so you are saying if someone is charging you that you shouldn't get out of the way? You can look on youtube for clips of the show "Cops" there are situations where the police officer is being charged and they move out of the way and keep firing. I remember a few where the officer fires his entire mag. One thing you aren't taking into consideration are misses, not every shot hits it target even at close range and especially at moving targets.

[KarmaInferno]

I remember a few where the officer fires his entire mag.

That's because they are often taught to do so. Even if it's not "officially" part of the training manual.

They are taught that if you in a situation where you must open fire on a target, do so decisively. You put him on the ground, empty your magazine into him if you have to, if he's still moving put in another mag and empty that one. If the target is so dangerous as to require bullets to stop, he's dangerous to not just you but anyone else in the area, and you need to make SURE he's down for the count, not play fancy games.

Granted, a soldier is taught differently, as they often engage multiple targets, cannot easily pull out of the situation, and thus need to conserve ammo.

But law enforcement generally can operate with the assumption that ammo conservation isn't likely to be a huge factor, and if it IS, they are probably facing an armed group, in way over their head, and need to pull back and call for backup.


-np

[Angelone]

That's because they are often taught to do so. Even if it's not "officially" part of the training manual.

They are taught that if you in a situation where you must open fire on a target, do so decisively. You put him on the ground, empty your magazine into him if you have to, if he's still moving put in another mag and empty that one. If the target is so dangerous as to require bullets to stop, he's dangerous to not just you but anyone else in the area, and you need to make SURE he's down for the count, not play fancy games.

Granted, a soldier is taught differently, as they often engage multiple targets, cannot easily pull out of the situation, and thus need to conserve ammo.

But law enforcement generally can operate with the assumption that ammo conservation isn't likely to be a huge factor, and if it IS, they are probably facing an armed group, in way over their head, and need to pull back and call for backup.


-np

Huh interesting, good to know as well. I wondered why they did that didn't think their training was that different.

[Sengir]

Walking is just not a "highly complicated" affair for humans.

Not under normal circumstances. As soon as you move even slightly outside the normal paramters, things look different...just like even minor damage to the brain can have extreme consequences.

Because they also mention the best examples when you talk to them?

I asked around for more examples, not for the same ones. While obviously the scenario "some punk charges you with a knife" is not unknown (although still rare), the scenario "the punk turns out to be a zombie who can only be killed by decapitation" is outside of media reports...

Step 2 is that you explain why people are taught to sidestep (you think this doesn't have any effect)

So you obviously have not understood how a reductio ad absurdum works...

It's actually quite easy: You assume the opposite of your position is true, then draw conclusion from there and show they lead to absurdity.
So, we assume you are right and in most cases the guy running towards an officer with a knife will act like Living Dead for ~10s, uninhibited by the bullet impacts and heedless of his injuries. In that case, our hypothetical attacker would obviously have zero problems with the officer sidestepping and taking cover...he's not affected by the bullets for the time being, after all.

Now of course if we assume the attacker is already stumbling, sidestepping becomes a decent idea...

[Smokeskin]

So you obviously have not understood how a reductio ad absurdum works...

It's actually quite easy: You assume the opposite of your position is true, then draw conclusion from there and show they lead to absurdity.
So, we assume you are right and in most cases the guy running towards an officer with a knife will act like Living Dead for ~10s, uninhibited by the bullet impacts and heedless of his injuries. In that case, our hypothetical attacker would obviously have zero problems with the officer sidestepping and taking cover...he's not affected by the bullets for the time being, after all.

Except that in the real world, charging someone sidestepping takes considerably longer. The attacker can't just keep on building forward momentum - he has to get his feet to one side and drop his center of gravity to the other side and start pushing that way. If you move forward at an angle, you can perhaps even force him to actually slow down in order to not overshoot you. Why don't you just go out and try it with a friend? It becomes the difference between just sprinting 7 yards, and catching someone evading - do you really think this is the same? And meanwhile, the attacker is getting shot and losing blood and approaching consciousness.

Likewise with catching someone on the other side of an obstacle. It just isn't that easy to leap over a table, jump down on the side and stab someone - if you're on the other side of the table, you can easily stay out of his reach until he bleeds out - and again, meanwhile the attacker is going to keep taking fire.

And of course people are affected by bullets - they do cause pain and you can do bio-mechanical damage (nerves, muscles, tendons, bones). Maybe the guy will drop at 1 bullet, maybe at 5, maybe even 50 hits won't bring him down. There's nothing wrong with playing the chances game, and no one is saying "it doesn't have any effect to shoot someone". We're saying "you can't in any way rely on a few bullets taking your target down instantly, your tactic has to reflect that".

[Sengir]

Why don't you just go out and try it with a friend?

The guys I normally play Rugby with are still in Dessau, because THEY got to see Bolt Thrower *hrmpf*...

and no one is saying "it doesn't have any effect to shoot someone".

It is not the exception. People don't just stop because it hurts. "A few solid punches to the chest" doesn't give the target some pause. Even in something as trivial as sparring, it doesn't work - hurts like hell, and lack of oxygen becomes an issue after a while, but it doesn't prevent you from moving or throwing more punches. With the adrenaline pumping in a life-and-death situation, people will ignore even more pain.