I don't think the guy deserved death, but, well, he had a retaliation coming.
It's just unfortunate for him, that it resulted in his death.
It's just unfortunate for him, that it resulted in his death.
I read your whole post.SteelStallion said:Read the rest of my post. It really isn't just as simple as "He hit him, he deserves to die!"
What kind of sick minded justice do you believe in?
I Just made a post on the page right before this with a few things you should look at.Angerwing said:He was using a laser sighted gun fitted with .45 Hollow-point rounds, and he was joining the military. He shot the kid 8 times in the chest for punching him. Is the kid in the wrong? Hell yes. But that is some serious fire-power and a grossly disproportionate reaction from someone who probably is quite experienced with firearms. I think he wanted to kill someone, anyone, to be honest.
Also punched in the face and suffering blurred vision.Angerwing said:He was using a laser sighted gun fitted with .45 Hollow-point rounds, and he was joining the military. He shot the kid 8 times in the chest for punching him. Is the kid in the wrong? Hell yes. But that is some serious fire-power and a grossly disproportionate reaction from someone who probably is quite experienced with firearms. I think he wanted to kill someone, anyone, to be honest.
It does sort of make sense by showing reasons to have gun control and not having it, showcasing the dilemma. The article could've been more elegant about it, but I think that was the intent.The_AC said:This has absolutely nothing to do with the Arizona shooting. Shame on the reporter for even bringing it up.
Which is basically exactly what I said. If you fire a gun perfectly straight up, then yes it will mostly likely loose spin stabilization and tumble back to Earth at a non-lethal terminal velocity. But at even a shallow angle from 90, the bullet will reach apogee and then "fall" while continuing to spin and avoid much of the air resistance, thus coming back to Earth with more than lethal velocity. One story, for instance, involved a single bullet, likely fired in a New Years celebration, passing through someone's head, killing them, and then hitting someone in the side to cause enough injury that they were pronounced dead once they reached the hospital, bleed out probably. Earlier I pulled up a few more stories of people being killed by suspected/confirmed falling bullets and testing done, the testing was in German though. And not that their science is 100% all the time, but it was tested by the Mythbusters.Blue_vision said:Where is this information from? Just doing a bit of simple math, a freefalling bullet would have less than 1/100 of the kinetic energy that a freshly fired one would. I can't imagine that being enough to hurt someone.Slycne said:Unless you just so happen to fire exactly straight up in the air(which will cause the bullet to fall back a much slower terminal velocity), a bullet will travel its trajectory and fall to Earth with lethal force. There are confirmed cases of this and thus why it's illegal to fire a gun into the air in many places.Jumpingbean3 said:Forgive me for not being an expert on guns and propulsion physics. Also a falling gun bullet shot upwards hardly sounds like a serious threat to your health.
I believe that the law against shooting the gun in the air is to prevent shots at angles like 45 degrees, which could maintain horizontal speeds to kill someone a hundred meters away. But straight up in the air? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll trust the math first.
well... if you are in fear of your life, i would think one would shoot as many times as it takes to make the attaker go down, and 8 gunshots can be fired really fast if one has enough skill with the triggerBut I mean, it was eight shots fired. How do you shoot someone eight times in self-defence? That makes no sense.
I can personally attest to that in the US Army Infantry training, you are not taught to fire warning shots. If it's an escalating situation has not been resolved by verbal or the perceived threat of you being armed and they are a threat to you. You shoot to kill.The Rogue Wolf said:Warning shots are for the military and the movies.
Not necessarily, ever heard that saying "once a thief always a thief"? the mugger could have survived and realized that for now on he would be more careful and carry a gun around next time he tried mugging someone so he wouldn't risk getting shot again.Girl With One Eye said:Sorry but I have to disagree with a lot of people here. It was just a couple of kids and the guy shot him eight times. He could have fired a warning shot, I mean hes clearly capable of handling himself if hes applying for the military and keeps fit. The kid had his whole life to turn around, but now he won't get that chance. People who do bad things can change, and I don't think it was necessary to shot him eight times so he was sure he would be dead.