aka @jsylvis@lemmy.world

Just another person seeking connection, community, and diversity of thought in an increasingly polarized and team-based society.

Other contacts:

  • 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle






  • 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.










  • 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.





  • You shouldn’t go “pew-pew” when every shot you miss can hit an innocent bystander.

    Heck, even a shot that you don’t miss, can go all the way through and hit someone totally innocent on the other side.

    You seem like someone who has absolutely no understanding of firearms and ballistics.

    Assuming one follows the rules of firearm safety, including know your target and what is beyond your target, there’s no risk to bystanders. This person was clearly not firing wildly. This was a 9mm from a short barrel - there’s no real danger of over penetration.

    Your fearmongering is ridiculous.