Tennessee congressional candidate Adam Heimerman was arrested for shooting four Flock Safety ALPR cameras, facing felony vandalism charges in the same district debating the tech.
“I support it if he used a shotgun but by gawd if he used a handgun he can burn in hell”
This makes no god damn sense man.
Edit: I was wrong about this. The issue is that handguns and rifles will keep traveling and potentially kill someone. A shotgun with birdshot would not do that.
Basic gun safety states to know your target and what lies beyond it. Even a simple .45 has the potential to go through a camera, wall, and into a person, meaning that a perfect shot still has a non-zero chance of your bullet taking out a person or ruining someone’s day.
Using one of the first gun types displays foresight and consideration that I’d desire in a politician. The second type indicates a reckless figure who is uninformed about the tools and power that they wield, and doesn’t embody the values of a politician I’d trust.
It’s not enough to take action and be a badass; it’s important to also show that you’ll at least try to keep your constituents safe.
Well, shotguns generally are extremely range limited, and birdshot is pretty mild after a couple dozen feet. You’re not gonna hurt someone accidentally, even if you completely miss the thing.
Handguns and rifles have an extremely high likelihood of hitting something or someone behind whatever you’re shooting at and travel great distance. Miss the camera, and you end up doming some poor bastard just walking down the street a mile away, or hitting some kid chilling in their room.
If by “extremely high likelihood” you mean “a remote but non zero chance” then I agree. It’s obviously too high a chance to take when it could result in someone’s death, but there’s just to much empty space between people to make it likely he would hit someone.
Well if you’re aiming up toward a camera on a pole, and miss, there’s a 100% chance it hits something else behind it. That being a person is low, but that’s not the only irresponsible thing to hit with a bullet.
Also, there are 30-40 deaths every year from inadvertent falling bullets from shooting up into the air.
I’ve seen people completely miss a target from 5 feet out lol. And even then, the cameras are mostly plastic. A higher-powered rifle or handgun round would just go right through and keep going like nothing.
Lol, what?
“I support it if he used a shotgun but by gawd if he used a handgun he can burn in hell”
This makes no god damn sense man.
Edit: I was wrong about this. The issue is that handguns and rifles will keep traveling and potentially kill someone. A shotgun with birdshot would not do that.
Basic gun safety states to know your target and what lies beyond it. Even a simple .45 has the potential to go through a camera, wall, and into a person, meaning that a perfect shot still has a non-zero chance of your bullet taking out a person or ruining someone’s day.
Using one of the first gun types displays foresight and consideration that I’d desire in a politician. The second type indicates a reckless figure who is uninformed about the tools and power that they wield, and doesn’t embody the values of a politician I’d trust.
It’s not enough to take action and be a badass; it’s important to also show that you’ll at least try to keep your constituents safe.
That’s fair actually and does make sense.
Well, shotguns generally are extremely range limited, and birdshot is pretty mild after a couple dozen feet. You’re not gonna hurt someone accidentally, even if you completely miss the thing.
Handguns and rifles have an extremely high likelihood of hitting something or someone behind whatever you’re shooting at and travel great distance. Miss the camera, and you end up doming some poor bastard just walking down the street a mile away, or hitting some kid chilling in their room.
If by “extremely high likelihood” you mean “a remote but non zero chance” then I agree. It’s obviously too high a chance to take when it could result in someone’s death, but there’s just to much empty space between people to make it likely he would hit someone.
Well if you’re aiming up toward a camera on a pole, and miss, there’s a 100% chance it hits something else behind it. That being a person is low, but that’s not the only irresponsible thing to hit with a bullet.
Also, there are 30-40 deaths every year from inadvertent falling bullets from shooting up into the air.
I’m not defending shooting into the air, I’m just disputing the “extremely high likelihood” that you will hit a person.
I mean, if you just gloss over half of what I said sure.
You’re not disputing anything because that’s not what I said.
I said you have an extremely high likelihood of hitting “something or someone” behind it.
Which is absolutely true.
That’s fair acrually but I would hope he would walk up to it and shoot it and not try to hit it with a scope from 100 yards away.
There is truth in what you say though.
I’ve seen people completely miss a target from 5 feet out lol. And even then, the cameras are mostly plastic. A higher-powered rifle or handgun round would just go right through and keep going like nothing.