razorburn said:
I would not draw on a bb-gun wielding person, if I knew for a fact that it was a bb gun.
It has been made clear that this very thing may be impossible to determine. Do you have Superman vision?
razorburn said:
The power level of any gun that shoots bbs is ridiculously low and would be unlikely to penetrate your clothes, much less do serious damage to you.
Honestly,
what planet are people from who argue that "any gun that shoots BBs" can't do any damage to you?!
Do you realize how absurd that hyper-generalization is??
I'd like you to maybe indicate your willingness to stand five feet away while I aim even one of those crappy spring-loaded Marksman "1911s" at your eye. You don't think that even a BB at, say, 200 fps could damage your eye?! Now take a Daisy 881 pumped 10 or so times, alleged to make over 800 fps. Do you honestly think that this is all about whether it can go through your shirt, sweatshirt, and leather winter jacket?! How in the world do you know that the shot won't be at your throat, mouth, eye? And you believe that there is NO gun that fires BBs that could do more than make an annoying little welt?
When I was a teen, I had air rifles which are considered "magnum" class by the airgun community. A .22 cal MAC-1 Steroid 392 launching 14 gr pellets at 900+ fps and a rws 94 advertised at 1000fps in .177 and 850 in .22. Both failed to penetrate 1" of cheap composite wood plank. I measured it out at just over 1/2" of penetration in wood.
So, it failed to penetrate 1" of wood, so that means it's just totally incapable of rupturing an eyeball, yeah?
I do not care that authorities will charge someone with "deadly weapon" when threatening others with a bb gun. They may also consider fingernail clippers on a plane to be a "deadly weapon."
The fact that they have slapped "prohibited" onto nail clippers does not mean that your hyperbole is a valid argument. The one has nothing to do with the other, unless you want to conveniently ignore that people HAVE lost eyes to BB guns, and they HAVE even caused death!
As for dreadnought's pics, the one on the right is easily ID'd as a bb gun because of that silly little rod thing on the bottom.
Is this more of the Superman vision?
What about if the gun is held in a hand with a really big sleeve, like on a winter jacket (similar to the BB-proof one you'll be wearing), or if it's a low-light situation?
Really, I just don't understand why so many people are just disavowing the notion that a BB gun can cause substantial enough injury to warrant deadly force. C'mon, people, the law puts you in the clear with the wording "grievous physical harm." Other laws talk about "lasting injury or loss of function of a body part or organ."
How many of you would want to be blinded because you did not want to meet force with force, because you thought it was unseemly to shoot someone who had "only" a BB gun? I am not saying you have to necessarily
shoot, even -- but some are saying they would not even draw! I'm sorry, but I am a pilot and a skydiver and I am NOT going to leave myself open to losing the ability to do those things just because "it's only a BB gun." I may not
know that it's "only" a BB gun, first of all; and even if I did know, I'd give the attacker (he IS an attacker, after all) ONE SHORT CHANCE to give it up (and I'm going home with the BB gun, or to the police, btw) with my weapon drawn. And the funny thing is, no one would ever have to know if I really did know it was a BB gun or not. A fool would admit, "Yeah, I drew knowing it was a BB gun." A wise person would say, "How would you like to be in that situation and not be sure, and then have someone second-guess you, officer? I couldn't be sure, and I thought it sure looked like a real gun, so I protected myself."
-azurefly
-azurefly