BlackbeardBen
1000+ Head-Fier
Quote:
Most of you in this thread live in some fantasy world.
Not sure about everyone - but you? Yep.
Quote:
Quote:Which is why they then did calculations on the subject and found that it was not possible. At all. Not even with the most absurd input parameters.
You clearly didn't read my first post, where I linked to the declassified scientific report on the subject. Give it a read - at least the abstract, like I said the first time.
Read my post again. I referenced the paper when I wrote "and concluded that the reaction wasn't sustainable due to radiated energy loss". Point being, the fact that they did the paper in the first place and that a Nobel laureate took the concern seriously meant that it was more than an inside joke among the scientists initially.
Sorry, I misread that. But the point is - it was not a concern when they finally performed the Trinity test, because they had researched it and concluded it impossible. Thus, no perceived risk of destroying the world as we know it.
Quote:
Quote:Most of you in this thread live in some fantasy world.
I'll take that as a compliment from someone who believes that shooting fleeing thieves in the back is not only legal, but necessary and proper.
Me too.
Quote:
Quote:I know it's NOT legal dude, I just don't see why it's "improper" like there is some established code of ethics on shooting intruders. Someone comes in my house they are getting shot, I don't care which way they are moving.
In general*, the use of deadly force against a person is only allowable if you are reasonably in fear for your life or the life of another. No reasonable person believes that someone fleeing from you presents enough of a threat to you for you to be in fear for your life. Shooting them as a form of punishment or because you just felt like you should doesn't meet that criteria.
* Some states have less rights, some states have more. See a lawyer for details.
Agreed.
Quote:
Again, all legality...not common sense.
I wouldn't say shooting someone running from you is ever common sense. I can see why, if he/she/they had just killed or maimed family or friends - but at that point there is perhaps still rational reasoning to think that he/she/they may return with a more formidable weapon(s).
But a common burglar - who breaks in to steal your laptop/jewelry/tv/whatever, armed with at most a baseball bat or switchblade? If you come out of your bedroom with a 12 gauge, they ain't comin' back. With this - the far more common scenario - you'd have a hard time making any case at all.