Jeremy [Iowa]

Pretty much this; the politics subs put an incredibly fine point on it.

That would be several steps up from where BSG is.

Suddenly, I miss the old days of Android. I suppose it’s back to CyanogenMod or whatever it is these days

Regulatory capture seems about on par for Google these days. I suppose I’ll be switching back to OnePlus for Android devices; that’ll be about it for Google stuff in my home.

I see we can mark off “double down on wartime economy boost” on the recession check list.

I consider the privilege of choice in taste of one’s preferred stimulant to be one of the few small joys to late stage capitalism.

In the same sense that your response was in any way tied to anything stated, sure.

Considering your “source” is “trust me bro Garand Thumb showed it bro”, I’ll give your trolling concerns due consideration.

I have to suggest you take your own advice and, once more, highlight the absurdity of your position in baseless “lol no ur wrong”.

You’re right that Garand Thumb has great videos. You’re wrong that FMJ universally goes through human-form ballistic dummies. It can, sure. Is guaranteed to? Far from it. You seem to be pointedly ignoring the assumptions necessary for you to make such a ridiculous generalization.

Edit: had you mixed up with a troll; removed the irrelevant parts.

Im pointing out how absurd of a claim it is that small rounds run no risk of over penetration.

Oh, so you’re addressing something other than was actually stated?

You might want to revisit what I had actually said. Run no risk? Hardly.

It’s funny how much of a thrashing you’re getting for spreading this misinformation. Hopefully you consider it before the next, or first, time you pick up a gun.

I’m not sure I’d consider a handful of randos making absurd, baseless claims to be a thrashing - one could call it dogpiling, sure. Thrashing implies some sort of beatdown, though… and all you’ve brought is nonsense. If you’d been able to back up that misinformation nonsense in any way - say, by addressing and refuting points made - you may have had a point.

Yikes, dude.

At this point you’re just repeating yourself with additional hyperbole and insult; it looks like we’re done here.

I wasn’t aware drywall is exactly identical to the human body. Could you highlight that reasoning?

You are saying absurd things.

And you are clearly projecting your ignorance of firearms and ballistics.

I’m well aware of the ballistics; that over-penetration depends on incredible assumptions. Try the ballistic dummy tests for a better representation as the factor in the bone. The human body is more than gelatin.

And no, this is not true for hollow points.

If guns are permitted so that they can fight a tyrannical government

There is no “only” in play here; “fight a tyrannical government” is just an extension of self defense.

why are people allowed to carry them to shoot other citizens?

Self-defense.

So you didn’t watch it.

Seeing how you’re arguing in bad faith, this is where we shall part ways.

Discussions must be easier when you can simply accuse another of your own failings, with no support for such an accusation, and just peace out when called out on it.

I believe that’s considered trolling.

The video which demonstrated a single rounded placed into the assailant low-center (backwards? barely any aiming? Way to take the mask off), completely clear of those stands and “unknown clients”?

Did you watch it? The extent to which you’re misrepresenting what happened makes a person wonder. I sincerely hope it’s just you were just too preoccupied with confirmation bias to see the objective truth of the situation in the video.

The person was attempting to walk away and was repeatedly headed off by the friend of the assualter, per the trial.

Imagine assuming the worst of a victim and blaming them.

Correction: may over-penetrate, given the actual center-mass shot, and even then, given this individual seems to have ensured a safe shot e.g. knowing what is beyond your target, there’s absolutely no reason to assume such risk.

This, even side from jumping to alarmism regarding projectile without a reference to the actual projectile used. It seems you’re just fearmongering.

Ah, the as an [x] / how do you do, fellow kids trope.

As a lifelong gun owner, you clearly have no understanding of how firearms work and should probably seek out a firearm safety course if you own guns. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation about firearms. The shit that just came out of your mouth would never be said by a responsible gun owner.

Given my direct reference to one of the rules of firearm safety - one which agrees with your point of err on the side of caution - I’m interested in how you jump from erring on the side of caution to criticizing a victim for erring on the side of caution in defending themselves.

Feel free to highlight how anything here - in this individual’s situation or otherwise - is dangerous misinformation. Take all the time you need to support such a position.

A responsible gun owner always errs on the side of caution. They know that discharging their weapon is an absolute last resort.

And, as shown by both the video, the arguments in court, and the jury’s ruling, this person acted perfectly in-line with such. And, as highlighted, the individual gave due consideration to the shot taken.

They also know how loud a 9mm is when fired in an enclosed space, and that even if miraculously in a shopping mall there was no one down range of his shot, it very likely damaged the hearing of nearby bystanders.

Not likely. Here’s a breakdown on how decibel reduction applies over distance - start from the ~160db of 9mm out of a handgun and work down, then compare to the video.

You seem to be talking entirely to baseless hypotheticals, to the complete neglect of the situation at hand. This, entirely aside from quibbling about loud noises when one justifiably defends oneself complete with respect to duty to retreat.

Imagine jumping straight to obvious hyperbole as a means of supporting one’s rather absurd position.

Imagine defending such.