I said that I condoned the Mexican military pointing their weapons at people who were armed and crossing their border and had just shot one of their citizens who was on their side of the border at the time.
Let me ask you, if it was reversed. Lets say that a Mexican border agent shot an American Citizen who was standing on American soil who was throwing rocks at them, and then these armed Mexican Border agents were trying to cross the border, would you say that the US border agents shouldn't point their weapons at them?
I know my thoughts. I would be pissed if the US border agents failed to point their weapons at them as they were trying to cross.
Now, it seems there is some doubt as to whether the US border agents actually tried to cross the border.
If they didn't attempt to cross the border, then I don't condone the Mexican authorities pointing weapons at them.
Now, if you were simply confused and failed to comprehend the situational specificity of my comments, then perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I explicitly stated these things in my first post in this thread, and I apologize.
Are you saying this 15-year old boy killed all of these people?!?!?!?!Once again you aren't reading carefully. I gave you a link where Mexicans have crossed the border and murdered our people. I suggest you actually go to that link if you have the courage to confront the truth about illegal aliens murdering American citizens.
Then explain the murdered people on the border by gunshot by illegals in that link. Go ahead.
If not, then it doesn't relate to my situation-specific statements, now does it? Irrational and emotional arguments have no sway with me. I don't care. If you are thinking about using an emotionally-based argument with me, rethink things.
None of my arguments here have been about the fact that the boy was killed. They've always been about where he was when he was killed. If the little ****er had been on US soil at the time, I wouldn't care that he's doing a spot on impression of Swiss cheese right now.
But he wasn't on US soil.
Thus, I have a problem with it. It's all about logic.
I look at how I would wish our people to act if the situations were reversed, and I apply that same reasoning to this situation.
If things were reversed, I'd hold the same position.
Would you support Mexican authorities shooting American citizens on American soil in these circumstances?!?!??!?
They have no authority here, nor should they have any authority here.
Because of that, I believe our authorities should not have any authority there.
Density?!?!?!And how is that equal to a rock which can be thrown at a distance, needs no conversion and is at least 10 times more dense than a newspaper?
Obviously you have to brush up on physics. Denisty does not equal hardness.
For example, ice is less dense than water. Which one is harder?
A wooden baseball bat is less dense than liquid water. Which one is a better weapon?
Hell, mercury (Hg), a liquid, has a density that is more than 4 times greater than teh density of a diamond, the hardest naturally occurring substance.
Density =/= hardness and it has nothing to do with what makes an effective weapon.
As far as "equality" goes, it depends on a lot of factors being taken into comparison. For the rock, it would depend on the rock being thrown, the distance that it must travel, and the relative skill of the thrower. For the newspaper, it depends on the skill of the person wielding the "Millhouse Brick" (this is what the actual weapon made from newspaper is called).
The farther away the person is, the less likely a hand-thrown rock is to kill them. Simple physics. That's because as the distance increases, the weight of the rock must decrease in order to have a chance of reaching the target. This is because the maximum force that can applied to accelerating the rock is constant. In orde rto attain greater distances, force cannot be increased, so the weight of the rock must decrease. Since the impact power of the rock is dependent on the weight of the rock, distance is a huge factor in killing power of hand thrown rocks.
Obviously a rock launched form a trebuchet will be highly effective at killing people. But no human has enough strength to match this feat. In truth, at 100 ft or so, the odds of being killed by a hand thrown stone are slim to none.
Whereas, in order to use a millhouse brick, I must be within striking range of the person. I must also have skill at using this weapon and be able to target the right areas. It's not likely to crush a person's skull unless wielded by an exceptionally strong person, but it would collapse a larynx with little effort.
My statement was that I can kill someone with a newspaper. If I were given a choice between throwing rocks at someone or using a millhouse brick on them, and told that my goal was to kill that person, I'd opt for the millhouse brick. I'm far more likely to be able to kill a person with the millhouse brick.
If the goal was to irritate them from a moderate distance, I'd throw stones. The odds of killing someone like this are extremely small. If I was 2-4 ft away from them and they were immobilized, as is the case in stoning executions, I'd probably say that the rocks would be more effective. But just because a rock can be highly effective at four feet away when the target is immobilized doesn't mean **** when compared to a target 25 ft away and capable of dodging.
But a newspaper in my hands is going to be a way deadlier weapon than a rock that is thrown by a child.
My comparison was about relative danger of certain things. In my hands, a newspaper can be used as a weapon. A dangerous one at that.Seriously you are trying to defend this worthless comparison of yours?
Hand-thrown rocks are not particularly dangerous, especially when one increases the distance from the thrower. They can be completely benign if someone acts intelligently.
Then get your money back.
How about this. I'll get a refund for my education after you hunt down and shoot whoever taught you that density would be a factor in weapon efficacy.
I'm not saying a rock has equal power to kill as a newspaper in general. I said I could kill someone with a newspaper. I could also kill someone with a rock.If you think a rock has the equal power to kill as a newspaper you weren't paying attention.
If both are being used as blunt weapons, the rock is going to be much more effective than the millhouse brick.
But if I'm using the millhouse brick as a blunt weapon, and the rock as a projectile weapon at a distance, then the millhouse brick would be more effective.
Let me ask you this, would you rather face off with someone who is trained in martial arts and has a newspaper that he folded into a millhouse brick, or a small child who is throwing rocks at you?
Even better, what if the person throwing rocks is your average person, but the dude with the millhouse brick is trained in hand-to-hand combat?
The danger posed by a particular weapon is entirely dependent on the skill of the person who wields it. Just because something can kill someone under certain conditions doesn't mean it is very likely to do so.
How many people have been killed by hand thrown rocks that were at a distance? Remember, the only reason I'm saying this is wrong is because the rock throwers were on the Mexican side of the border, which means hat there is distance.Can you point to anyone in history who was killed by a newspaper at a weapon? Anyone? I can give you thousands of people who have been killed by thrown rocks.
That also means that they cannot pass a certain point and still throw rocks without getting shot. The Border agent can increase the distance between him and the rock thrower very, very easily in order to protect himself.
If the rock thrower steps over the border, whether he's still throwing rocks or not, then the border agent is fully able to shoot said rock thrower.
Absolutely. They have every right to protect themselves in the most rational manner possible. In this case, he should have simply walked a few feet away to get out of danger.Because you left me no other conclusion. I'll ask it again, do you support our border agents protecting themselves while on the border when attacked? Yes or No?
It's the irrational approach to the situation that is the problem. He didn't even try to remove himself from harms way. even though it would have been easy. Instead he shot someone who wasn't on US soil, which is something he is not authorized to do unless he has no other option (i.e. there is a legitimate weapon being used where he cannot reasonably walk a few feet away at a leisurely saunter in order to avoid danger. Rocks being thrown at you by hand from a distance are fairly easy to avoid when you know they are coming. I've done it hundreds of times in my life)
Its not a question of like or dislike. Its a fact. He was right.