The slingshot does "hit harder" i.e. impart more momentum into the target and thus more likely to knock you down.
Intuitively this seems like it would therefore cause the most damage and for several 100 years this was the prevailing logic with muskets and cannonballs.

So much so in fact that when Charles Whitworth first introduced his rifle it was dismissed by the British army partly for having too small of a bullet. Whitworth used a smaller more stable round for its increased range and accuracy/stability (though there were also concerns about "muzzle fouling" and slower reload time).
It was believed at the time that the larger (slower) much less accurate bullets from the Enfield were more effective at actually injuring enemy soldiers, but history later demonstrated that speed and penetration can have just as much (if not more) effect on soft bodies than sheer mass and momentum.

Simply put, that large slingshot round would likely knock you to the floor in the same was as an MMA fighter landing a roundhouse square in your guts would. It might even penetrate the skin a bit and embed itself in you. What it won't do however is travel through your soft tissues at high velocity and create a large "temporary cavity" which is how most firearms do their real damage.

The 9mm etc. don't carry as much overall energy as the slingshot, but they do deliver it to a soft target much more effectively (that is to say lethally). A much more informative test would have been to fire them into ballistic clay, this would have highlighted the differences between speed, momentum and penetration much more clearly. The slingshot would leave a massive dint, the bullets would leave tunnels.

That said, the point they are making does stand to some extent. If you used that slingshot on someone that was trying to shoot you there is a good chance you'd knock them down (or at least stop them taking an aimed shot back for a few seconds). Hell you might even hospitalise them with a good shot!

It's not fair to say that the slingshot is a more "powerful" weapon but I think they did clearly demonstrate that it's a viable alternative under some circumstances. In fact for defending yourself in your own home etc. it might even be better!

Little/no risk of collateral damage (unless you miss really badly)
Very cheap
Would put most people on the floor with one good hit
No firearms licence or background checks needed
More difficult for a child to misuse (Most kids would lack the strength)
Enemy wouldn't expect it
Much less likely to kill
etc. etc.

Hell I'd get one myself if UK law wouldn't fk me over for using it.
It's illegal here to use a weapon specifically intended or kept for defense. i.e. if you grab a random object like a chair and beat up an intruder that's ok, if you have a baseball bat etc. by your bedside for expressly this purpose then it's not.
Handy then that one of my broken computer chairs happens to contain a loose 1ft long iron bar. Naturally I'd never even consider using such a thing violently, but who knows what might come to hand when faced with an intruder

(Seriously though, as broken furniture its a viable means of defence, if I kept it by my bedside as a "weapon" I'd be breaking the letter of the law by using it. Fucking stupid!)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Browser brand? try reloading or log out and back in.

Wha, huh???...Sorry, I'm still playing this game
(http://nigoro.jp/ja/games/rose/) someone showcased in sift talk years ago, along with JFK Reloaded every morning with coffee!

BTW, that last battleaxe is nothing compared to the queen grandmother..

Oops, I misread your comment earlier. My bad.

Is your IP address changing? I notice when I switch IP addresses (e.g., proxies), VS complains and forces to reload. I think one of VS administrators said this was by design for security.

Backup added.

Incidently, only about 1 in 4 of those mandatory ads seem to be loaded properly on my end. Maybe it's a matter of location, but as of now, I have to reload the player a couple of times before it works properly.

Ever since vs5.0, if my link drops for even a second I need to reload the page before I can vote. Very annoying

I hope you're wrong but I suspect this will be the case. The car chase/shoot out gave me bad flashbacks to The Matrix Reloaded.

Do people realize the whole "if a good guy owns a gun" goes both ways? I love this argument because it's so one sided and utterly blind. I'd like to call it the "dumbass argument".

Let's think for a moment: kids looking for friend suddenly have a man open fire on them, so they all pull out their firearms to protect themselves from the raving lunatic old man who opened fire on them first. Old man is dead, riddled with dozens of bullets. Good guys win. Oh . . . wait. That's not what happened. The good guys didn't have a gun. Or was the old man a good guy? I'm confused now. Who's the good guy?

We had something similar here in Florida where a man was going door to door to sell lobster. Homeowner shot him in the head as he walked away, kept shooting him, and went to reload while an officer was trying to arrest him.

The real issue is the fact this man, and the man in my example, simply thought owning a gun meant they could shoot and kill someone for almost a pathetic reason. Both were "defending my home" against the evils of lobsters and ice skating. I believe this is the movie line of "shoot first, ask questions later." This is what is referring to as the "gun culture."

Yeah, guns (unless it's a colt) don't kill people, people with guns kill people. But there's an old mentality (that's pretty much dead now) that using a gun was cheating. That using a gun wasn't personal, so they resorted to swords and fists. Now, it's so easy to kill a person that it's almost impersonal just to shoot at some brown kid who's "invading" your home by showing up in a car, knocking on the door politely, and asking "Dónde está Paul?"

So anyway, now that we're arguing on the internet . . . .

Aside from the overall tone of your previous rambling sentiments on the subject (ahem, "rapid reload of semi-automatic and double-action revolvers"), the emphasis with "parenthesis" of a single word with clear intent to elicit ( showcasing an all-to-familiar lack of, "control" ), the subjective inference as to my inspiration or motivation for posting this video/ it's timing or titling...(down votes?! WHERE?!)???....I'd say your initial analysis reads like horse shit.
Thank you for your passionate observations and curiosity.

Oh and, down votes for any reason I heartily endorse and encourage,...Thanks for the advice on behalf of the three already with jerking-knees long-inebriate with the Kool-Aide, and for those to follow there, shcveddmeyer

One thing that interests me is the control aspect. By definition, this is only viable for a first person view point. You could maybe use it for 3rd person, but that seems kinda pointless.

Currently first person games assume 2 main control inputs, position and direction. I'm ignoring action based inputs (shooting, reloading using, etc) because this doesn't really change those. Right now, an FPS essentially assumes your body always faces the same way as your head. If you run forward and look right, you turn right.

This will have to change for this, or it's pointless. Essentially you'll need 3 inputs, position, direction and head orientation. That's doable with this system, but I'm not sure how it will affect gameplay. I certainly don't want to aim using my head.

Different from the one in the Matrix Reloaded. The internet claims that that's the Ediety Knot, but those two don't look the same either.

I'm not really a weapon expert, so I dont know anything about the AT4, but I have used M72's (or M66 as we called it), and yea, I know you can put in and reload practice shots, but then they just become a really, really crappy rifle. You could probably do 10 times the damage with a standard issue glock or a cheap hunting rifle.

But give a crazy guy an AK47 or similar assault rifle... those are just plain murder machines. The name really gives it away, they are ASSAULT rifles, and thats the only thing they are good for: Assaulting and killing several people, the kind of thing you do in a WAR.

Yea like @zeoverlord said: Those are not reloadable like the RPG-7 but are one shot weapons where you then just dump the tube after shooting it once. Basically someone handed in a couple of already fired AT4 tubes. They are originally Swedish made and the US has adopted them as they are far superior to the weaker LAW so they have probably been brought home by a soldier who have fired them in training or perhaps even in one of the wars.

The Swedish name is Pansarskott m/86 but the US renamed them to AT4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

Oh I almost forgot that there are reloadable AT4s as well but they have been modified to fire 9mm pistol tracer rounds for target practice... cheaper and safer than the real deal...

Actually both of them are one shot deals and can't normally be reloaded, especially the larger AT-4, though i do think there are versions of the LAW that can be reloaded for training purposes.