[spittinfire]

Should I add my $.02?

[Lindenwood]

Spittin, that's what forums are for .


IGETEVEN, like I said I am not going to be an armchair commando and point out every thing they did or did not do correctly, especially without having been there and knowing the exact details of the situation. But, there are lots of reasons a target might only get shot once or, at least, not get shot repeatedly until stopped.

The most obvious example is the target or his accomplice(s) shooting back. Nobody in their right mind is going to square off in a perfect shooting stance and carefully aim each shot, when their target or another is returning fire. This is what happened in the police shootives I've shown. The officers shot when they could, and took cover when they needed to.

The second most obvious example is if the target moves behind cover after being shot. Then, of course, the shooter no longer has the ability to continue putting rounds into the target, and if the target was not shot in the CNS, it is entirely up to him whether or not to continue the fight.

[dnthmn2004]

Originally Posted by spittinfire

Should I add my $.02?

Who's got the popcorn?? This is going to be good.

[IGETEVEN]

[spittinfire]

Originally Posted by dnthmn2004

Who's got the popcorn?? This is going to be good.

Well now it's been built up.....I'm nervous now.

[NGIB]

Since this isn't closed yet, I'll make my last comment. There are two kinds of people in the world:

Those that have done it.

And

Those that have read about it.

Methinks real credibility resides with the first group...

[Lindenwood]

Originally Posted by NGIB

Methinks real credibility resides with the first group...

Credibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a statement is true. He is saying that, because of his experiences in which people he shot immediately stopped their hostilities, that all people who are shot immediately cease their hostilities. I have shown over and over that this is simply not an accurate generalization, and is in fact a dangerous one to postulate.



The President says a lot of things. Are you guys to believe him just because he's the president? I mean, given his status he has way more "credibility" than anyone from the interweb. If he says guns cause crime, are you going to believe him just because of some credibility? NO, you listen to his arguments and logically determine they are invalid or unsound. Just the same, in the academic world, arguments are not dismissed or accepted simply based on credibility. If an inmate or a highschool senior submits a paper that redefines the effects of Dark Energy on the universe, it will be considered just the same as if Bill Nigh (the Science Guy) wrote it himself.

It is a logical fallacy to try to relate the arguer to the validity of his argument.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though, I guess some of you have no appreciation for what it means to be smart, so perhaps my reference to Academia will be lost.

[user4]

Last word given. Thread closed. Some of y'all are just a bit over sensitive to alternative viewpoints. Not everyone is an armchair commando just because they disagree with you.