Harold69 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 8:09 pm

bong.kuit wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:34 am

Alex wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:38 am Each and every wannabe assassin needs to know for himself (not too many female political assassins around) where to draw the line. Ultimately, it will be history that will pass judgment, often long after the assassin is dead.

I can't see any possible justification for shooting a candidate - someone who isn't currently in office - at a rally such as in Trump’s case. I'd say the minimum criteria are or should be: Someone in office doing horrible things who cannot be stopped by other means.

Sounds like a good start to me, even if still a bit vague.

I don't think it would be justified to kill Trump, but I see certain parallels between the ideas of shooting Trump and blowing up an Iranian general eg., just on different levels.

Pretty sure I'll be contemplating this question for a bit longer...

Thomas Matthew Crooks was a bright engineering student, a political visionary, and a nutter. He will be in the history books as a John Hinckley Jr, rather than a Lee Harvey Oswald. He will be an inspiration to other nutters with firearms between now and November. One of them will put a bullet in Trump’s neck, paralyzing him from the neck down. The Donald will live to the ripe old age of 100 and become an elder statesman and an advisor to the Harris administration in the next 8 years and in future presidential administrations right up until the end. It came to me in a dream.

Well, Harold, your dream doesn't sound half as crazy as many of the things that are happening in reality right now. So you've got a shot.

He wasn't shot at all, he was just slightly grazed. Why have Americans gotten so soft? A little scratch and next thing the guy is wearing a giant sympathy bandage for weeks. Next thing you'll be trying to convince yourself that bone spurs are a good reason to avoid the draft.

Th others who ‘weren’t shot, just grazed’ are dead and seriously injured.

Being shot is being shot.

A successful first shot depends on a whole bunch of serious training. Windage, bullet drop, characteristics of the round, breath holding, etc. Typically people go to sniper school (military or otherwise) in order to train to hit the target consistently on the first shot.

It’s a tragedy.

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 10:45 pm A successful first shot depends on a whole bunch of serious training. Windage, bullet drop, characteristics of the round, breath holding, etc. Typically people go to sniper school (military or otherwise) in order to train to hit the target consistently on the first shot.

I know, I played COD too.

John Bingham wrote:

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 10:45 pm A successful first shot depends on a whole bunch of serious training. Windage, bullet drop, characteristics of the round, breath holding, etc. Typically people go to sniper school (military or otherwise) in order to train to hit the target consistently on the first shot.

I know, I played COD too.

COD is a simulation simplified for enjoyment. An approximation of the real thing. Look at any shooting magazine or go take a course at Gunsite. Accurate target shooting is pretty complicated skill.

Hunters who take a couple deer tags every season typically don’t go to this level of training. Especially accurate shooting under pressure. The most they typically do is sight in the rifles before the season starts. Game can be stalked for a long time. A highly guarded target has only a narrow window of time.

This reply was originally in response to why Trump was only grazed and not dead.

I stopped playing COD when I realized how much good stuff there was out there and much it costs to have it all. It’s all too depressing.

Thanks, you must be a captain in the Gravy Seals by now?

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 1:50 am I stopped playing COD when I realized how much good stuff there was out there and much it costs to have it all. It’s all too depressing.

You're one smart cookie.