Theres some documentary evidence that trained professionals miss quite a lot, even at quite short distances. Not to impinge on your marksmanship, but I'm guessing the melon wasn't shooting back? (and its being reported that the shooter was disturbed by a police officer and may have rushed their shot, so in the circumstances it could equally be argued it was actually remarkable he came as close as he did).
To be clear, you guys are having a "pissing contest" over who's got the most accurate aim, with a dead 20 year old kid who tried to assassinate the US President.
Just to remind y'all of the context here.
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
Steady on. They are attesting to what a miracle it is none of the bullets struck their target and exploded his head like an overripe pumpkin that's been on the porch since last Halloween.
Hallelujah!!!
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy.
The US news are saying that Trump's security had been boosted recently because of an Iranian allegedly plot to kill Trump.
They were probably busy looking for someone who fitted the profile of a muslim terrorist and the young guy didn't.
F-ZeroOne wrote:Theres some documentary evidence that trained professionals miss quite a lot, even at quite short distances.
Oh, they absolutely do. And the following is very much speculation, due to not having been in an even close to analogous situation, so take it for what it's worth..
Trained professionals don't generally want to shoot people. Because they're mostly - well, just people, and people don't want to kill people. When they're called upon to use their training, it's the last resort, and things have gone wrong. Stress is high, and they're having to do the thing they don't want to do. Mostly, anyway. I'm sure there are psychopaths as well.
The guy who shot at Trump is a totally different kettle of fish. He went in with the explicit intention (for some reason which is far from clear) of killing Trump and, one might presume, as many other people as he could. He had no escape plan. He knew he was going to get killed. He wasn't reacting to something having gone wrong, he was deliberately hunting. The people he was shooting at were not people, they were prey. See also Sandy Hook, Columbine, Hungerford…
Yes, it's being reported that he may have been disturbed before he started shooting. But he managed to get off 6 to 8 shots before being (somewhat euphemistically) "neutralised". 6 or so (albeit perhaps rushed) shots with hunting ammunition into a crowd of people who probably haven't even realised there's anything wrong yet. Shooting fish in a barrel. My guess would be that it's only because he was specifically trying to hit Trump that there weren't more people killed. And although you can probably pop off that many shots with a semi-automatic in a couple of seconds, he doesn't seem to have been shooting that fast; the guy who died was trying to protect his family - enough time had passed for him to realise what was happening and act, before getting shot. Might be wrong about that, though - the guy might have realised he'd been shot and tried to make his family safe as some desperate last act.
Anyway, it was less terrible than it could have been, at least partially because he wasn't a terribly good shot.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
Oooh, this could be a good trolley problem.
Could it have been worse if the bullets had hit their intended target, instead of the audience? Would you sacrifice the life of a patriot to spare Trump?
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy.
That's the limit. You're not allowed to go past two terms as US President (and, by extension, he cannot be Vice-president either, as the VP has, of course, the duty to take over should something happen to the President, which would also breach the two term limit).
It's an interesting history.
George Washington famously, as Commander-in-Chief, fought the British to secure independence for America. But how would this nascent nation govern itself?
Many, grateful to Washington, actually suggested he should be their King. This notion, though, greatly offended Washington because, after all, throwing off the tyranny of the English King was kind of the whole point of the War of Independence ("no taxation without representation"). And, no doubt inspired by Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" which convincingly argued for the democracy of the common man and the French Revolution, which had successfully brought it about (albeit by a rather extremely bloody method).
To Washington's mind, the suggestion he be made "King of America" was like "umm, were you not paying attention to the whole point of what we just fought a war over?".
Err, no. Not "King of America".
So they impressed upon Washington that he be "President for life". Also, no, you're missing the point. A President for Life would, after all, be little different to just being a King by another name.
Washington was no doubt disappointed by these calls, and though he actually said he had no wish to be President, he stood in a democratic election to set the precedent for the President. Worried by these calls for Kings and Presidents for Life, he conceded to run for just being an ordinary President, to set the role model of how this shit was going to work from now on.
It was no surprise that Washington - that some had called to be their King - won that Presidential race hands down. And then he won a second term.
And then Washington stood down. That's it. No man should wield such power for any longer than that. He was setting the precedent.
This precedent held until Roosevelt, with no-one serving as President for more than two terms. But this was "tradition" rather than law, so Roosevelt did something that no other President has done (or now can do), as he fought and secured a third and fourth term as President. But, yeah, this went against "tradition" and was controversial that it would be dangerous to allow someone to potentially keep running for election and effectively become "President for life" - and his opponent in that Presidential race made exactly these points - so the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was introduced.
It is now law that no-one can serve more than two terms. Washington's precedent was taken and abided by all the way to Roosevelt, and then after Roosevelt's tradition-breaking four terms (though one could say it was special circumstances, as there was a war going on), the "tradition" was canonised in law and it's not legal to run more than twice.
So, no, not Obama. Indeed, only Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump, of former Presidents, only served one term of office that they're able to go for a second (though Carter is 99 years old now).
Though, if Trump wins, he'll possibly try and refuse to leave office again. But that's another matter and it would be perfectly illegal.
22nd Amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
(and its being reported that the shooter was disturbed by a police officer and may have rushed their shot, so in the circumstances it could equally be argued it was actually remarkable he came as close as he did).
