Nice being able to say that in the comfort of your own home with your warm and plushy fursuit, isn't it?Fawcks said:
Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man
- Thread starter RamirezDoEverything
- Start date
Seriously, you need to start actually reading people's responses to your posts. You have been ignoring the good information that has been presented to you by more than one poster. You've already been told multiple times why hollow points and laser sights might be a perfectly valid choice for a weapon of self defense. You've also been told why good training would dictate that you shoot at center mass until the attacker goes down, however many rounds that takes. Instead of listening, you continue to let your moral stance (whether it is right or not) lead you to continuously betray your ignorance of how guns and gun training actually work.danpascooch said:God you really are smug aren't you? Whatever, the mods will take care of you before long if you keep up your attitude.mirasiel said:Well it serves 2 purposes, firstly it shows you that yes people who have been shot can keep on trucking if you dont knock them down hard and secondly, and maybe this was a little too subtle, the round that the m16 usually fires would be the kind of round that (certain) people would have wanted Baker to fire IE it is a solid round that doesn't fragment* or deform* but instead passes through 'cleanly'(for a certain value of clean) the target and carries merrily on it way down range.danpascooch said:
Unlike the hollow point rounds this fellow used.
Do you see where I'm going, shall I use pictures**?
*well not like a HP round anyways, they still do what bullets do when they hit hard stuff, just not as much.
** Yeah..I probably shouldn't have bothered editing out the first one either if you were just gonna whine about it
If you think a suicidal terrorist has the same motivation and tendency to continue attacking when faced with a gun that an unarmed mugger does, than no amount of logic is going to help you, and I'll let you wallow in your sense of superiority having equated an unarmed mugger to a suicide bomber. Congratulations, you are sticking to an analogy so fatally flawed and batshit insane that I have lost all will to attempt a logical discussion with you, feel free to call it a win if you want.
Would it have been better if Baker hadn't been in possession of a gun at the time? Can't say. Maybe Baker would be the one dead. The boys obviously didn't know what they were doing. Who's to say that they wouldn't have accidentally (or purposefully) beaten Baker to death. Maybe Baker would be fine, and just out some cash. Doesn't matter. Baker did have a gun- one suited to the purpose it was intended for. In a tense moment he acted in a manner which good gun training would account for. The boy died because he chose a course of action that put him in a dangerous situation that he wasn't prepared for. It's not what the boy deserved, but neither is it Baker's fault, as the law showed.
You don't have to agree with the mindset that produced the law. You don't have to agree with the USA's second amendment that allowed Baker to possess a gun in the first place. But you can't intelligently argue that his choice of weapon was poor, nor can you make a valid claim that Baker's actions were disproportionate with the situation as handgun training would teach him. People more knowledgeable than you in the subject have already shown that much.
Mmm, yeah, it is pretty nice.Daddy Go Bot said:
Given by the fact that you're defending the guy who shot eight times, without a warning, instantly to a blow to the head, and given the fact that you IMMEDIATELY jumped to the "Fursuit" attack (I don't even own a fursuit, the idea does not appeal to me, I'd feel ridiculous in it), I get the following impressions of you:
1) You're a coward. Unprovoked personal attacks are a staple of a coward, and you employ them well. Good show. This is just my impression, however.
2) You lack empathy. Was that child a criminal? Yes. But you have to remember that he was also someone's son, or close friend, and they have to live without him. You see him as nothing but a violent criminal, but to them, he was so much more. To so flippantly take another's life like that is not something I'd never endorse.
I don't even know why you chose to attack me, considering I gave the guy a pardon. What the Hell is wrong with you.
I agree that if you have to take the shot, a laser sight can help, and I was wrong about the HP ammunition.Scars Unseen said:Seriously, you need to start actually reading people's responses to your posts. You have been ignoring the good information that has been presented to you by more than one poster. You've already been told multiple times why hollow points and laser sights might be a perfectly valid choice for a weapon of self defense. You've also been told why good training would dictate that you shoot at center mass until the attacker goes down, however many rounds that takes. Instead of listening, you continue to let your moral stance (whether it is right or not) lead you to continuously betray your ignorance of how guns and gun training actually work.danpascooch said:God you really are smug aren't you? Whatever, the mods will take care of you before long if you keep up your attitude.mirasiel said:Well it serves 2 purposes, firstly it shows you that yes people who have been shot can keep on trucking if you dont knock them down hard and secondly, and maybe this was a little too subtle, the round that the m16 usually fires would be the kind of round that (certain) people would have wanted Baker to fire IE it is a solid round that doesn't fragment* or deform* but instead passes through 'cleanly'(for a certain value of clean) the target and carries merrily on it way down range.danpascooch said:
Unlike the hollow point rounds this fellow used.
Do you see where I'm going, shall I use pictures**?
*well not like a HP round anyways, they still do what bullets do when they hit hard stuff, just not as much.
** Yeah..I probably shouldn't have bothered editing out the first one either if you were just gonna whine about it
If you think a suicidal terrorist has the same motivation and tendency to continue attacking when faced with a gun that an unarmed mugger does, than no amount of logic is going to help you, and I'll let you wallow in your sense of superiority having equated an unarmed mugger to a suicide bomber. Congratulations, you are sticking to an analogy so fatally flawed and batshit insane that I have lost all will to attempt a logical discussion with you, feel free to call it a win if you want.
Would it have been better if Baker hadn't been in possession of a gun at the time? Can't say. Maybe Baker would be the one dead. The boys obviously didn't know what they were doing. Who's to say that they wouldn't have accidentally (or purposefully) beaten Baker to death. Maybe Baker would be fine, and just out some cash. Doesn't matter. Baker did have a gun- one suited to the purpose it was intended for. In a tense moment he acted in a manner which good gun training would account for. The boy died because he chose a course of action that put him in a dangerous situation that he wasn't prepared for. It's not what the boy deserved, but neither is it Baker's fault, as the law showed.
You don't have to agree with the mindset that produced the law. You don't have to agree with the USA's second amendment that allowed Baker to possess a gun in the first place. But you can't intelligently argue that his choice of weapon was poor, nor can you make a valid claim that Baker's actions were disproportionate with the situation as handgun training would teach him. People more knowledgeable than you in the subject have already shown that much.
What I don't agree with is that instead of trying to scare them off, because, you know, you have a FUCKING GUN and they have nothing, you should just immediately unload a clip into their torso. Is it the safest thing to do? Yeah, it probably brings your chances of survival up a percentage, but it drops their survival chance to 0, and I don't think the tradeoff is worth it when you consider how low the chances of an unarmed mugger not running away after being shot at really are.
These people may be more knowledgeable about guns than me, but they aren't more knowledgeable about what I think is morally right, nobody is, and that is what I'm arguing about.
I don't think it's morally right to fire more than one shot unless you see they have a weapon, because honestly, these guys are muggers, not assassins, do you really think a shot wouldn't have scared them off?
What I don't appreciate is this guy's smug attitude, even if I did spout a misconception or two, it's not like I'm fumbling in the dark like a blind ape or something, and I don't think that suicide bombers and unarmed muggers are a fair comparison. He has absolutely no right to be a complete dick, I've seen people like him around here all the time, I bet within a week he'll have gone too far and get a suspension.
Without warning? He was randomly assaulted by 2 thugs for no apparent reason. In such a situation you better assume the absolute worst.Fawcks said:
They were at striking range, so giving out warnings is simply not an option. You don't wanna present them a change at disarming you, would you?
Lack of empathy? I have 0 tolerance when it comes to violent thugs attacking innocent civilians.
They engaged it and he ended it.
It was after midnight, the jogger was alone, and then suddenly two people come out of nowhere and punch the guy in the face and some of you question why he shot so many times. It doesn't matter if the guy was a trained military man or no, if that situation happens to you I would bet that you would react in the same way. Also, have you ever tried to shoot a moving target, let alone a person's limb? It is not something just anybody could do.
Hence why I stated he shouldn't be charged.Daddy Go Bot said:
After a single punch to the face, though? Punches to the face aren't fun, but seriously, not even a warning shot? Eight bullets? He obviously panicked, and I can't hold that against him, but it's just not what I would want to do (Hence why I said in my first post "I'd like to think", because I can't say for sure what I would do in his shoes). Maybe I'd be hit more. Maybe I'd be shot. I don't know. But I don't think I could bring myself to shoot to kill someone.
As (former) trained military, I would have done exactly the same thing (including missing a few shots. Being trained doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be a sharpshooter when the adrenaline is flowing). I was trained to always aim for center mass, and that's exactly what I'd do. Well, if I didn't live in Japan and have no desire to own a gun regardless, that is.Darkrain11 said:
Warning shots still have to go somewhere. Would you prefer that they hit an innocent bystander a mile off?Fawcks said:
As I said, when you're randomly assaulted by multiple thugs in the middle of the night you need to assume the absolute worst.Fawcks said:
Single punch to the face? It busted up his lip and his vision became blurry. He assumed they were armed (Which is a safe assumption to make) and when you're in such a situation your body goes into survival mode. It's all about instincts and your instinct tell you cease the threat as quickly as possible.
By the way, warning shots are pure hollywood and not a viable option when you're in striking distance.
I been thinking and this controversy is because the mugger was a teen if it was an older person nobody would care
pretty sad. A civilian is hated for defending himself against an assailant. During moments like that a civilian doesn't have the luxury of time. We humans don't have much when it comes to night vision to give us a detailed about the environment at night. Could the civilian have the time to decide if the individual was a professional mugger, killer, or a simple thief? After getting assaulted from NO provocation on his part, is it safe to assume that the only thing the person wanted was his money and not his life?
....Let me put it this way. "If" a woman is walking at night after dropping off a friend and than is randomly assaulted by 2 individuals at night, she has a gun in her pocket, holster or purse that she is permitted to use and she fires the same amount of rounds at the mysterious individuals. Later we find out the details of the assault and it was by 2 women who wanted her money. What if the woman assaulted believed she was going to be raped or killed. Would you throw your anger at the woman who was assaulted.....most of you would considering how this is turning out...and that is a shame and sad. Pity for the assailant and anger towards the victim...really is a shame.
....Let me put it this way. "If" a woman is walking at night after dropping off a friend and than is randomly assaulted by 2 individuals at night, she has a gun in her pocket, holster or purse that she is permitted to use and she fires the same amount of rounds at the mysterious individuals. Later we find out the details of the assault and it was by 2 women who wanted her money. What if the woman assaulted believed she was going to be raped or killed. Would you throw your anger at the woman who was assaulted.....most of you would considering how this is turning out...and that is a shame and sad. Pity for the assailant and anger towards the victim...really is a shame.
I can't do that. If you want to assume the absolute worst, go ahead. But I personally would not, and I would try my best to make sure everyone left alive. TO be honest, this is why I'll never carry a gun or a knife. Also why I'll never go JOGGING at NIGHT.Daddy Go Bot said:
Might as well walk into a lions den after marinating yourself in barbecue sauce. But I digress.
I instantly throw away that "Vision blurry" bit because we can't know for sure, and he obviously panicked. His testimony on that is not credible as such.
If warning shots are out of the question, how about shooting once? Is that too much?
