While they sometimes may be charged, you will never hear about them on the news because its boring unimportant stuff.
Id have been in trouble in TN, I usually have a couple of extra clips available when I carry, but even with them id probably have run out of bullets protecting myself and others. THEN it would be on the news that some white guy ( me) went on a shooting rampage killing 25 black kids who were playing in a parking lot.
I'd bet they would scatter at the first shot. There is no way those kids would charge someone with a firearm. Is this an appropriate time for a warning shot straight up?
I'd bet they would scatter at the first shot. There is no way those kids would charge someone with a firearm. Is this an appropriate time for a warning shot straight up?
This I believe, happened in Memphis Tenn. That city is no stranger to gunfire--happened every night when I twice lived there in the 70s and was even worse when I lived there in 1985-86.
I'd bet they would scatter at the first shot. There is no way those kids would charge someone with a firearm. Is this an appropriate time for a warning shot straight up?
What goes up must come back down and as high as a bullet would it would come back down with lethal speed. If there was some raw earth, as in no concrete or pavement type stuff, I'd suggest firing that warning shot straight into the ground.
What goes up must come back down and as high as a bullet would it would come back down with lethal speed. If there was some raw earth, as in no concrete or pavement type stuff, I'd suggest firing that warning shot straight into the ground.
We are talking a paved parking lot full of cars and people and asphalt. I'm thinking worst case, you have no warning and suddenly a ton of people are heading your way quickly. The distance is very short and you have only a second or two before some kids take a swing at your head. What to do?
Conclusion, from the source you cited: "Shooting guns randomly into the air has a high probability of being dangerous." Myth indeed.
There was a "celebratory gunfire" incident on the 4th of July a couple of years ago in Kansas City. A local man was convicted of causing the death of a young girl by firing his 9mm straight up into the air from about half a block away.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-12-2014).]
As I understand it, it's not being pursued as a hate crime because Tennessee law is written such a way that aggravated assault carries a more severe charge. Add to that, there isn't clear, or remotely provable evidence that it was racially motivated or otherwise done as an act of outright bigotry. Seems a case of kids with a history of thug-like behaviour carrying on however they please.
But what do I know? I've just been living out of a hotel south of Memphis since Sunday night and this story is the only thing that's been on the local news this week.
Ridiculous! I don't think he deserved to be banned for this
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock - in many, many another thread
That's always a problem when someone gets banned. People thinking that his last posts are why he got banned. So I'll just repeat what I said many, many times before. His last posts are the proverbial drop. Nothing more, nothing less. So did he get banned for his views in this thread? No. Of course not. Don't be daft. But he did pick up the (few) negative(s) here needed to put him over the edge.
Regarding [the banned member]:
As always with a speedban, I can throw my rating in the mix to see if that tips the scale the other way. For those of you who are new, let me explain.
Normally, your ratings bar only becomes active (and visible) when you reach 50 ratings. From that moment on, if you reach a point where you have way more negatives than positives, you are automatically banned. The exact ratio of negative to positive ratings necessary to get banned is kept secret but let me assure you that it isn't easy to get yourself banned.
Does this mean that as long as your ratingsbar isn't visible, you can't get banned? No. In reality your ratingsbar becomes active (although not visible) when you reach 20 ratings but the ratio necessary to get banned is much, much higher. No really, much higher. As soon as you reach this ratio, you are speedbanned.
A lot of times when someone gets speedbanned, I get asked to undo the ban. Either by the person himself or others. Usually because they feel they were unjustly banned or because they were new and didn't know how the ratings system worked (as if that's an excuse to behave like an a-hole). When I receive such a request, I usually look at the ratings these people got. If I feel the banning was just (read: he was behaving like a complete ass in most threads he participated in) I won't do anything about the ban. In all other cases, there's only one thing I can and will do: throw my own rating in the mix. I can rate a person even after he is banned. If my (positive) ratings tips the scale the other way, the forum software automatically unbans this person.
That's what I did with [the banned member] here. I just gave him a positive rating and see what that did. It unbanned him. It doesn't mean he's in the clear because he is in fact still on the edge. A few negative ratings will be enough to get him permanently banned.
That's always a problem when someone gets banned. People thinking that his last posts are why he got banned. So I'll just repeat what I said many, many times before. His last posts are the proverbial drop. Nothing more, nothing less. So did he get banned for his views in this thread? No. Of course not. Don't be daft. But he did pick up the (few) negative(s) here needed to put him over the edge.
Regarding [the banned member]:
As always with a speedban, I can throw my rating in the mix to see if that tips the scale the other way. For those of you who are new, let me explain.
Normally, your ratings bar only becomes active (and visible) when you reach 50 ratings. From that moment on, if you reach a point where you have way more negatives than positives, you are automatically banned. The exact ratio of negative to positive ratings necessary to get banned is kept secret but let me assure you that it isn't easy to get yourself banned.
Does this mean that as long as your ratingsbar isn't visible, you can't get banned? No. In reality your ratingsbar becomes active (although not visible) when you reach 20 ratings but the ratio necessary to get banned is much, much higher. No really, much higher. As soon as you reach this ratio, you are speedbanned.
A lot of times when someone gets speedbanned, I get asked to undo the ban. Either by the person himself or others. Usually because they feel they were unjustly banned or because they were new and didn't know how the ratings system worked (as if that's an excuse to behave like an a-hole). When I receive such a request, I usually look at the ratings these people got. If I feel the banning was just (read: he was behaving like a complete ass in most threads he participated in) I won't do anything about the ban. In all other cases, there's only one thing I can and will do: throw my own rating in the mix. I can rate a person even after he is banned. If my (positive) ratings tips the scale the other way, the forum software automatically unbans this person.
That's what I did with [the banned member] here. I just gave him a positive rating and see what that did. It unbanned him. It doesn't mean he's in the clear because he is in fact still on the edge. A few negative ratings will be enough to get him permanently banned.
Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't calling out the system just wanted to know what Dan did to piss off 50 people
This guys image and the many offbeat, off topic, and off the mark comments that go with it bust me up. Keep it up, made my day a few times. Great stuff.
This guys image and the many offbeat, off topic, and off the mark comments that go with it bust me up. Keep it up, made my day a few times. Great stuff.
Totally with you ...I always got a smile with his post..
Ever hear about terminal velocity?
