• @slaacaa
      link
      115 hours ago

      I didn’t know that. What is the difference between this, and “built-in” shrapnel in explosives (from a legal perspective)? The end result is all the same after the explosion

      • @AnUnusualRelic
        link
        English
        145 hours ago

        Some of those nails are rusty. It’s not hygienic.

      • @kiagam
        link
        5
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Only think I know is that fragment size can’t be too small, maybe you can argue that a nail is untested and thus can make micro fragments? Curious to know why this wouldn’t be allowed

        Edit: looks like there is a general ban on “unnecessary suffering or superfluous wounds”, so if the nails are strong enough to injure but not kill, they are prohibited.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              23 hours ago

              Right so my understanding is something like fishhooks would be illegal because they’re shaped to maximize suffering, but these would be fine.

        • @Docus
          link
          13 hours ago

          Let’s do some thorough testing then. For uh… science

  • RubberDuck
    link
    9
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    I’d imagine a thin 3d printed jacket filled with ball bearings will exponentially increase the amount of shrapnell, it this ghetto variant looks nasty too.