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.
If we can’t devise quote “effective” gun control legislation (whatever that means to you, to me it means no guns at all), let’s just let everyone have access to guns, per their constitutional right.
Or, phrased so as to correctly highlight where the burdens lie, if a restrictive firearm measure isn't directly tied to a facet of firearm violence as an attempt to address a specific problem supported by an abundance of data and reasoning - aka well-justified - it should be resisted as yet another ineffective measure that can only serve as an incremental move toward defacto bans.
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.
As we've covered, the same charge I look forward to the court clearing him of next month. If you're still having trouble with the concept beyond this, I'm going to leave it to you to figure out.
The same charge pending judge review due to its inconsistency with having acted in self-defense?
Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said the conviction on the firearms charge is inconsistent with the law, given Colie’s acquittal on self-defense grounds. He asked the judge to set aside the conviction. A judge will hear arguments on the issue at a hearing next month.
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.
To be clear, the court has already said he was perfectly justified from the self-defense perspective. I look forward to it clearing him of the "firing indoors" nonsense.
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.
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.
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.
![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Considering your "source" is "trust me bro Garand Thumb showed it bro", I'll give your trolling concerns due consideration.