What's your opinion of killing military aged males in sandy countries bevause they may have used weapons in the past?
Way to not so much move the fucking goalposts as to attach them to a rocket and launch them at Mars.
I dunno, what's the bloody context? Are the sand joggers robbing a store I'm in? Did I just pass them on the street? Are we currently in sand jogger country and they're potential hostiles eyeing up my guard post suspiciously?
Because if this question is, essentially, "would you also say to double tap if it was an allahu ackbar instead of a dindu robbing the store with what turned out to be a toy gun?", I'd say "absolutely, ammunition does not discriminate, it only penetrates".
If a person is an aggressor with a deadly weapon, making sure the target is permanently stopped is the goal. You can own a firearm and not brandish it in a robbery. You can go for a walk about town with your firearm without automagically becoming a bandit, forced to assault and rob nearby people.
But when you make the choice to walk into a place, brandish a deadly weapon (which even in the most soyboi cuck legal frameworks is still understood to be an implicit threat of grievous injury and/or death), and rob people, you've made the choice to gamble your life. And you have zero recourse to complain if your gamble fails and someone takes your life.
Because the bandit is not a victim. The bandit is a violent criminal, who was quite likely to offend again, and potentially hurt or kill someone during the next robbery.
Hardly. You're writing novels to justify NOT reassessing the threat posed by an individual after you've filled him with holes and disarmed him. Reread your first paragraph in your reply to me, please.
How smoothbrained of a motherfucker do you have to be to consider eight sentences to be "novels"?
Go back to eating crayons. Taking the time to double tap an armed agressor is the only correct option. Leave him on the ground, and you have to take the risk that he's wounded but not incapacitated, and will try to escape or attack. Neither are acceptable outcomes.
Why are you so fixated on protecting literal armed bandits?
Why are you so obsessed with vigilantism and being violent? You write a lot and don't say very much at all, it's tiresome. You don't believe there's any point short of killing someone that they're no longer a threat so why are you even alive, you've definitely attacked someone in the past. Possibly even as a child that would have definitely grown up to be a violent serial rapist felon in your catastrophizing world in which there is no end to a conflict but the death of one party.
Christ, I can't tell if you're an absolute master at retarded takes, or if this is some weird gaslighting.
This isn't about vigilantism, you absolute retard. Vigilantism is concerned with seeking out criminals (or perceived criminals) to deliver some sort of extrajudicial punishment on them. I'm talking about, and have only spoken of, the correct response an appropriately armed and trained person should have to an active aggressor.
Since you're either too retarded to understand or are being willfully dense, let me spell that out in small words:
If you are minding your own business somewhere (say, eating at a restaurant), and suddenly some bandit appears and threatens to injure or kill you with a weapon unless you give him your valuables (money, jewelry, car keys, your wife/daughter, etc.) [say, like the jogger boy in this case], the correct and moral response is to shoot him until dead, even if this means complying (or pretending to comply) until the aggressor's guard is down or his back is turned.
All the other horseshit you've spouted are the ravings of a weak, soy-flavored resident of the safe western world, nu-male or woman makes no difference. You make excuses for violent criminals, castigate those brave enough to defend themselves (and, by extension, those around them, which some dark day might include you yourself), cast aspersions on those willing to frankly discuss the matter, and lobby accusations of criminality and violent psychopathy on those who call you out.
This is why we're bound for hard and interesting times.
Way to not so much move the fucking goalposts as to attach them to a rocket and launch them at Mars.
I dunno, what's the bloody context? Are the sand joggers robbing a store I'm in? Did I just pass them on the street? Are we currently in sand jogger country and they're potential hostiles eyeing up my guard post suspiciously?
Because if this question is, essentially, "would you also say to double tap if it was an allahu ackbar instead of a dindu robbing the store with what turned out to be a toy gun?", I'd say "absolutely, ammunition does not discriminate, it only penetrates".
If a person is an aggressor with a deadly weapon, making sure the target is permanently stopped is the goal. You can own a firearm and not brandish it in a robbery. You can go for a walk about town with your firearm without automagically becoming a bandit, forced to assault and rob nearby people.
But when you make the choice to walk into a place, brandish a deadly weapon (which even in the most soyboi cuck legal frameworks is still understood to be an implicit threat of grievous injury and/or death), and rob people, you've made the choice to gamble your life. And you have zero recourse to complain if your gamble fails and someone takes your life.
Because the bandit is not a victim. The bandit is a violent criminal, who was quite likely to offend again, and potentially hurt or kill someone during the next robbery.
Hardly. You're writing novels to justify NOT reassessing the threat posed by an individual after you've filled him with holes and disarmed him. Reread your first paragraph in your reply to me, please.
How smoothbrained of a motherfucker do you have to be to consider eight sentences to be "novels"?
Go back to eating crayons. Taking the time to double tap an armed agressor is the only correct option. Leave him on the ground, and you have to take the risk that he's wounded but not incapacitated, and will try to escape or attack. Neither are acceptable outcomes.
Why are you so fixated on protecting literal armed bandits?
Why are you so obsessed with vigilantism and being violent? You write a lot and don't say very much at all, it's tiresome. You don't believe there's any point short of killing someone that they're no longer a threat so why are you even alive, you've definitely attacked someone in the past. Possibly even as a child that would have definitely grown up to be a violent serial rapist felon in your catastrophizing world in which there is no end to a conflict but the death of one party.
Christ, I can't tell if you're an absolute master at retarded takes, or if this is some weird gaslighting.
This isn't about vigilantism, you absolute retard. Vigilantism is concerned with seeking out criminals (or perceived criminals) to deliver some sort of extrajudicial punishment on them. I'm talking about, and have only spoken of, the correct response an appropriately armed and trained person should have to an active aggressor.
Since you're either too retarded to understand or are being willfully dense, let me spell that out in small words:
If you are minding your own business somewhere (say, eating at a restaurant), and suddenly some bandit appears and threatens to injure or kill you with a weapon unless you give him your valuables (money, jewelry, car keys, your wife/daughter, etc.) [say, like the jogger boy in this case], the correct and moral response is to shoot him until dead, even if this means complying (or pretending to comply) until the aggressor's guard is down or his back is turned.
All the other horseshit you've spouted are the ravings of a weak, soy-flavored resident of the safe western world, nu-male or woman makes no difference. You make excuses for violent criminals, castigate those brave enough to defend themselves (and, by extension, those around them, which some dark day might include you yourself), cast aspersions on those willing to frankly discuss the matter, and lobby accusations of criminality and violent psychopathy on those who call you out.
This is why we're bound for hard and interesting times.