Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.
#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.
I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!
Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?
Though, actually, police do sometimes shoot people in the legs, if they are wearing body armour say. This happened in the North Hollywood shootout, most offices fired centre of mass (as they are trained to do), but since they couldn't penetrate the body armour the criminals were wearing to any great extent, someone tried shooting one in the legs. He went down and bled out before the ambulance reached him. Even knowing the criminals were wearing body armour, though, everyone else kept shooting centre of mass, mind.
It was also how they got Ned Kelly and at least one of his gang way back when, though Ned survived and was executed later on.
Well... In my biology class my teacher was talking about the current state of EU, and one girl raises her hand and asks "What is EU?".
So later on, I give an angry rant about this to my aunt, who responds: "Well, it's not like she needs to know. I think that men should be men and women should be women. Women should be concentrating on looking good and leave thinking and working to men."
Hmm... rather than simply saying that older generations are sad (while it may be true in some cases), I would say that it is a proof of how we humans cling to what we learn in our earlier years from our families and friends.
Of course this worries me immensely since the younger part of the general public is a flock of idiots who worship reality tv- stars, ignorance and idiocy.
And yes, I am an elitist.
Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.
#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.
I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!
Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?
Though, actually, police do sometimes shoot people in the legs, if they are wearing body armour say. This happened in the North Hollywood shootout, most offices fired centre of mass (as they are trained to do), but since they couldn't penetrate the body armour the criminals were wearing to any great extent, someone tried shooting one in the legs. He went down and bled out before the ambulance reached him. Even knowing the criminals were wearing body armour, though, everyone else kept shooting centre of mass, mind.
It was also how they got Ned Kelly and at least one of his gang way back when, though Ned survived and was executed later on.
In a similar note, that its more 'pro' to go for headshots, when, as you mentioned, most professionals are trained and experienced enough to go for centre of mass shots to reduce the chances of missing.
Additionally, the whole 'being exposed to vacuum makes you explode' myth. Thank you hollywood for that little pile of giblets. Its especially frustrating when a video reviewer who's a self confessed SF fan reacts to a more realistic depictions of people in vacuum by going 'hey, why hasn't he suffered explosive decompression! he should be sploded!'
Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".
And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.
I have to nit pick here, in part because I have not heard of pansexuality. Not KNOWING of something is not the same as being igorant. Not acknowledging something once you know of it is. Not knowing is not a problem, no one knows everything. Ignorance is what happens when you IGNORE knowledge.
I think think most of the people I described in my post meet your requirements, so my point still stands. I apologize if I didn't make myself clear enough before.
Queen Michael said:
Connor Lonske said:
Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".
And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.
I couldn't really tell if it was a joke or an insult, as I didn't really see the insult or the joke to be found anywhere. I guess it went over my head.
Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.
#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.
I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!
Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?
Though, actually, police do sometimes shoot people in the legs, if they are wearing body armour say. This happened in the North Hollywood shootout, most offices fired centre of mass (as they are trained to do), but since they couldn't penetrate the body armour the criminals were wearing to any great extent, someone tried shooting one in the legs. He went down and bled out before the ambulance reached him. Even knowing the criminals were wearing body armour, though, everyone else kept shooting centre of mass, mind.
It was also how they got Ned Kelly and at least one of his gang way back when, though Ned survived and was executed later on.
Oh, I must admit that I didn't know about that incident. But it does illustrate my point perfectly. Not only were the police shooting for the "lethal" shot, but shooting the guy in the "non-lethal shot" still killed the suspect before the ambulance was even able to arrive.
In a similar note, that its more 'pro' to go for headshots, when, as you mentioned, most professionals are trained and experienced enough to go for centre of mass shots to reduce the chances of missing.
Well, police snipers do do for certain parts of the head, but otherwise yeah.
Excepting the failure drill, which is 2 at the chest and 1 at the head. And then repeat until the target goes down, which is generally forgotten about.
I once had to explain to my stepdad that having a high definition television doesn't automatically upgrade every DVD and TV signal to HD. That was a shitty Christmas : s
Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.
#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.
I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!
Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?
Warning shots don't make any sense anyway - especially in the 'was this shooting justified' thread - I think our vandal was well aware of the gun in his face. The officer made damn sure of that.
We have these photo machines at work where you get to sift through your pictures and print up the ones you want. 3 out of 4 people require help with these machines. 2 out of those 3 will sit there with a stupid expression as you explain how to work the machine a few times. Most of those will glean absolutely no information from your help and will just fuck up and have to start over, asking for help again.
And I am 3 shades of fed up with people enlarging wallet sized pictures and throwing a ***** fit when it comes out fuzzy and pixelated.
And people who think copyright laws don't apply to them should walk out onto the highway.
And people... nah I'm just going to leave it at people.
EDIT: I should specify that my examples are all for people who have been told many times about the outcome of what they are doing. They just keep coming back...
Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.
#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.
I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!
Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?
Warning shots don't make any sense anyway - especially in the 'was this shooting justified' thread - I think our vandal was well aware of the gun in his face. The officer made damn sure of that.
Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".
And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.
I personally use the word "bisexuality" about all sexualities that include both men and women, since that's what Wikipedia told me and that's what people and dictionaries generally agree the word means. I see pansexuality as a particular kid of bisexuality, but I'll gladly hear your definition of the words.
I can relate to that. I dont like when people say that anime is only made in Japan or asian countries. Thats probably because one of my favorites is French.
Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.
#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.
I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!
Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?
Warning shots don't make any sense anyway - especially in the 'was this shooting justified' thread - I think our vandal was well aware of the gun in his face. The officer made damn sure of that.
Well, it applies to any such case where the suspect is in clear view of the officers, but my particular example was referring to the case in the restaurant car park, during which a conduit bender-wielding thug had a clip emptied into him for moving aggressively toward an officer.
My general argument was that resorting to a firearm was unjustified, but once he fired the first shot, why NOT keep shooting? You don't fire your gun unless you intend to kill. He COULD have fired a warning shot - though I don't see how a warning shot is any more intimidating than, say, sticking your gun into the vandal's face.
I understand with the intimidation techniques of the ASP and pump-action shotgun. Flicking out the baton, or pumping the shotgun are both necessary for preparing the weapon. That says you intend to fire. A warning shot says you're not prepared to fire at the person in front of you.
In fact - I think a lot of the intimidation value was lost by the officer holding his gun sideways and walking alongside the suspect. "Stop or I'll shoot" loses its impact when you're following your target.
I can relate to that. I dont like when people say that anime is only made in Japan or asian countries. Thats probably because one of my favorites is French.
I can relate to that. I don't like it when people think that manga isn't manga unless it was made in Japan. Frédéric Boilet might be French, but his comics give me more of a manga feeling than many Japanese mangaka.
And let's not forget that the only really established meaning of the word manga is "comics." Not "big-eyed comics," or "comics read right-to-left," just "comics." So when I get into an argument about that kind of thing, I tell people that. And add "So when I say that the word "manga" can be used about this comic, I've got over one hundred million Japanese people who agree with me. You think you know this stuff better than the entire population of Japan?"
I understand with the intimidation techniques of the ASP and pump-action shotgun. Flicking out the baton, or pumping the shotgun are both necessary for preparing the weapon. That says you intend to fire. A warning shot says you're not prepared to fire at the person in front of you.
In fact - I think a lot of the intimidation value was lost by the officer holding his gun sideways and walking alongside the suspect. "Stop or I'll shoot" loses its impact when you're following your target.
As I understand it, peacekeeping troops sometimes don't have rounds chambered in their rifles, allowing them to dramatically do so when they want to escalate their level of threat.
Also, warning shots have the sever disadvantage of a bullet being fired somewhere. Now, most shots fired in a shooting apparently miss anyway, but if giving warning shots became common practice, how long before some random bystander gets hit by a completely unnecessary bullet?
Saltyk said:
Oh, I must admit that I didn't know about that incident. But it does illustrate my point perfectly. Not only were the police shooting for the "lethal" shot, but shooting the guy in the "non-lethal shot" still killed the suspect before the ambulance was even able to arrive.
Actually, I'm told that the safest place to get shot is in the buttocks...presumably from the side going sideways than going forwards or backwards, which would make aiming there difficult at best.
Also, it's your arse, so getting shot there is a not serious thing that doesn't happen in action moviees.
Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".
And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.
I never really understood how pansexuality differs from bisexuality, to me it just seems like bisexuality to someone totally unbiased. I may well be way off the mark so please correct me if you can explain it to me better (learning is always good.)
Carrying on with the iPod name theme.
A lot of computer novices call the actual computer itself the "hard drive".
I always to an 'internal' facepalm in my mind whenever I hear someone use this term incorrectly like this.
Just wait for the end...
On topic: Too many people seem to think that all smartphones are "iPhones". So many, in fact, that I am currently considering calling all iPhones "Androids", just out of spite...
And no, the iPhone is not better just because you have to pay for updates and basically rent the phone from Apple anyway.
It really bothers me when people misunderstand certain phrases, because they only know them phonetically and have never seen them written down. For example, they'll say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden," or "in yet" instead of "and yet."
Or "could of"? Along with they're/there/their one of the worst (and inexcusable) linguistic mistakes I know. Seriously, even if English is not your first language, and especially IF English (or American) is your first language, the difference between these terms (or "have and "of") should not be too difficult to understand, if your brain's capabilities allow learning any language at all.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
