(NSFL) Man shot and killed by father-son duo in Abilene Texas - General

Well, I can't really read that, but what conditions did these shootings happen under? I'd like to see the actual incidents if possible

Yes, 16 instances of guns used and 1 led to a person's death. Does it specify what kind of injuries the targets' got, or if they hit their targets at all in those other 15 cases?

Maybe where you're from, starchild, back here on Earth even if you were using your weapon properly and legally, you can still be counter-sued.

The Millers may have had a case against them using their weapons wrongfully, if it weren't for the fact that Orange man started threatening to kill them and actually attempted to at some point.

Technically, they may still have a case against them if previous posts are to believe. They have been arrested. This isn't entirely black and white, which is good, because everyone involved was a cunt.

So you want to kill people over save their lives because you simultaneously dont care about them whatsoever and dont want to face potential responsibility, which can be thrown out easily after some actual legal dealings

Fuck off already with your moonlogic dude.

People have been drilling into your head that you 'don't use a gun if you don't want to kill someone' but you'll never listen, you're not even interested in listening. No matter how many times it's repeated, you obviously don't care.

Where the fuck are you getting this notion that going for non-lethal gunshots is an actual thing that professionals do in real life? It surely isn't from real life, so the only alternative is the media. Fucking cut it out and admit that you don't know shit. You're lowering the IQ of everyone in this thread with every post you make, and I wish you actually stopped posting when you said you would on page 3.

It isnt even about shot placement alone, its about mag dumping, of ending aggression when proper

We've literally been arguing this entire time that shooting to kill is the same as shooting to disable. I've directly stated that you don't 'shoot to execute'. When cops shoot to kill they shoot center mass and disable the target, they stop shooting when the target complies or is dead. If the target doesn't comply, they shoot again to kill or disable. This is how 'shoot to kill' works

Yeah, I think a police force that is trained to fire warning shots is not really an authority on proper gun safety and usage lmao.

Y'know, I can't be the only one that that thinks that making memes about this is kinda fucked, right? At the end of the day, you've got a schizophrenic man shot dead in full view of his wife and children. A person is dead because of this. His family's lives, irrevocably, have been changed by this event, likely for the worse - and it shows. Seeing her husband get shot to death in full view of her is going to be the worst moment of that woman's life. Something like this should not get the attention of le epic meme videos, or his killers be called 'based trash patriot' or other such stupid shit like that. It cheapens that death. It disassociates the weight of someone dying, with all the strings that come attached to it, into nothing more than a video or image macro to be spread for self-validation points - into a commodity - or to relish in how disaffected one is to this man dying, his family being traumatized, and the killers either being placed into jail for years on end, or exonerated and their names marked down as killers. All over a fucking mattress. Y'all can have your arguments about whether it was justified, or whether shooting could be non-lethal or not, but at least there's a stance of seriousness when it comes to the subject matter. Turning someone's death into a meme just doesn't strike me as right, and it isn't.

This whole non-lethal shooting shit is so fucking stupid. You shouldn't be shooting someone unless they're an immediate threat to you or someone else, in which case you shoot to neutralise the target and the easiest way to do that is a bunch of shots in centre mass. You don't do that and your negligence increases the chance of yourself or other people getting killed.

When you make a shot at someone to stop them in all likelyhood they stopped because they are now dead or in the process of rapidly dying. They could survive but that should never be considered when using a firearm or else you'll probably end up dead yourself. If you are in a situation where you actually need to use a gun to stop someone you do not stop shooting until they have stopped.

Jesus that womans scream is haunting

"Firing a warning shot" in lamen terms basically means increasing the potential to hit a bystander. Its not only dumb policy, but dangerous and reckless to boot. "Temporarily neutralize" means theyre firing until the person is incapacitated. Doesnt mean theyre specifically aiming for a limb, means theyre putting enough bullets into them to where theyre either no longer a threat or dead. The only instance I can remmeber where a Scandinavian police force shot a guy in the leg on purpose was a in Iceland with an elderly homeless guy wielding a knife. They were several feet away and using a sub caliber rifle. Not an instance thats repeatable nor is it a good outcome for that scenario. No. Whether everyone walks away happy and alive at the end of the day is up to the person whose threatening someone with a firearm, police officer or otherwise. If you dont want to get shot, dont try to hurt or kill someone with a gun. Blaming a person who defended themselves for not taking more unreasonable non-lethal actions is foolish. Ultimately someone still tried to kill them so the blame for justifiable homicide should not lie with them. You do not have enough of an understanding of firearms or ballistics to be discussing this.

We can all handle humor of all kinds, but don't be surprised if your character gets judged for simultaneously justifying their murder and laughing about it. It makes you look like a loon tbh

It's incredibly lucky the mother used all her bullets cause when that guy took the gun off her he tried to shoot her daughter with it.

I’ve seen some stupid shit on here before, but this thread easily tops the #1 spot. Guns kill people and Americans shouldn’t have them. Guns can be used to non-lethally shoot your assailant into submission. Pick one.

We went over that. that just means we need a higher standard of who can have guns because either a. It is impossible to non lethally shoot someone or b. Very few current gun owners can do it

I could not possibly care less what an inept individual such as yourself thinks about me, or thinks about anything at all. You've wholeheartedly proven to everyone here you have no qualifications to be discussing this topic, so I dont know why you'd expect me or anyone else to care about your character judgments. So what does it say about yourself that youre completely unable to convict these individuals on your dumb crusade but are also completely incaple of finding humor in the ridiculous situation? Be careful, you might get JUDGED.

Jeez, hit a nerve with some bants while murder humor is legit lol. Anyway, on topic, what is wrong with the dichotomy i posed? you really dont think guns should have a high standard because either a. No one can use them in a less lethal way, or b. because they are so inherently dangerous as to always be lethal.

ok can we stop with the "non-lethal" shit? If you make a shot at someone who was going at you despite you having a gun and that shot doesn't do vital damage it's unlikely he's gonna stop. A lot of people who have gotten a flesh wound from a gun have said they didn't even feel it at the moment. If you are trying to stop someone with a gun one of 4 things are going to happen: 1: They stopped because they got scared. 2: They stopped because of the pain. 3: They stopped because their body is too damaged. 4: They didn't stop and now you're dead. 1 and 2 are completely up to the aggressor and should not be counted on. If you are at a point where you had to resort to using a gun you have precious little time before the only option is 4.

I like how you conveniently iignore his equally worthless flaming. at least i didnt flame, just called him out.

You ignore what everyone tells you so hey

I actually don't need to, if you were to respond to the dichotomy you would see that there is the possibility it is impossible for guns to be used non lethally. That, however, justifies higher standards.

Who are you to decide what standard millions of gun owners should be held to and what we can and can't do? Also, you've spouted this a few times but haven't given any sort of idea what that "standard" should be, so have at it, give us some suggestions.

Licensing with hours spent with a professional instructor, just like....well, you know what that licensing system is like.

i'm still impressed you people went on this long