When threads take the direction of god made me do it Christian testimonials, voluminous scripture quotations (in the case of fundamentalists new testament only) to support those claims normally follow such testimony. As I avoid boring circular arguments beginning and ending with dogmatic faith (look it up), I'll refrain from further comment on this particular subject.

Translation: Since it was pointed out that Americano believes in zombies, and he realizes he no longer has any credibility, he's running away with his tail between his legs.

Careful americano - i hear zombies hide under beds and in the closet...

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

LOL Thanks!

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

What would you expect ?

Anyone who would advertise their own personal crisis to the world by getting on an internet forum and calling themselves "crisis" is going to be a bit beyond any logical discussion

Leg shots are not considered to be lethal by courts and authorities here in Denmark, since people usually don't die from them - and I believe that most european courts approve both warning and leg shots. In fact, a european court would most likely question why a gun carrier didn't fire a warning and/or a leg shot first if there was time for it, and he/she couldn't run away.

Lets make up a little fantasy scenario where you are in a blind alley with nowhere to run, and 3 guys with knives approach you slowly from 20 meters away. Wouldn't you under those circumstances find it more ethical and morally correct to shoot for their legs first?

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

And take the chance that one or two of them is able to keep advancing?

No, it's not more ethical or morally correct.

It's nothing short of absolute fucking stupidity...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Proof?

Leg shots are remarkably fatal. There are large vessels that can bleed a person out in a minute if ruptured, and the femurs can deflect bullets straight up into the abdomen and chest.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I seriously doubt that this is the case in any developed country in the world. A firearm is deadly force no matter what. If a person does not have a right to use deadly force in a given situation he or she cannot discharge a firearm. Officers are always trained to shoot for center mass. Even modern handguns are inaccurate in the best of hands, so the likelihood of missing is too great to try to aim for a moving person's legs. I once read that the average accuracy rate of police officers who had fired shots on duty was well under 20%. You simply will not be able to pick off a small moving target like that. It isn't anything like what you see on television. When the adrenaline rush and tunnel vision set in officers cannot afford to dick around by try to wound somebody because it will more than likely result in the officer or somebody else getting hurt or killed. The officer has a whole host of other less than lethal options he can use if deadly force is not necessary.

I was taught to never pull a gun unless you're going to use it and then shoot to kill, not to wound. Why take the chance that a wounded criminal can reach in his pocket and pull out his own gun?

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I was taught to never threaten anyone with a gun unless you must immediately shoot to stop them. And keep shooting until they stop.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I call bullshit. Cough up some proof on that.
The short answer to your question is no, i would not find it ethically and morally correct to shoot for their legs first. In fact, I would consider that morally and ethically bankrupt.

You shoot for their legs (small moving target below your line of vision) and miss (which you WILL) and you've just endangered anyone downrange. In addition, you've now allowed them to close the distance to you, demonstrated that you do NOT have the will to kill to defend yourself, and put yourself in mortal danger.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

AMEN!

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

No I say it like someone who says "my hand was guided by god” is a religious lunatic.

Someone who claims their hand was guided by god is and someone who says their hand was guided by god to kill someone is.

Spin it how you like . That’s your typical way of dealing with anything you find difficult to swallow at face value.

I have accepted many facts and points put forward to me. You refuse to see what is written, only that which you want to believe.

If you can’t debate rationally and sensibly without putting words in people’s mouths and using simplistic black and white logic then it is your problem if you get your undies in a bunch.

If I may?

Does this make him “a stupid reactionary asshole” too. You know, because he disagreed with you?

Which fact?

That’s right. And in this case the behaviour of human beings with guns.

And I am certain you have no idea about how she feels but are, as usual, projecting your own spin on it to make it sound exactly how you want it to.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like. But the tolerance that non religious people are expected to give religious people becomes extremely strained when they claim god made me do it for everything they won’t take responsibly for themselves. Osama Bin Laden believes his hand is guided by god.

That’s your take. Mine is she did what she did and let god take the rap.

You would need a sense of humour and to understand the concept of self effacement to get it.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

And, in this case, the behavior resulted in the attacker being shot.

Look, I'm about as far from being a religious zealot as you can get but, having actually used a weapon on people, I can certainly understand someone praying when they do so, and I don't have the slightest problem with that...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"