If he’s right wing, he’s a fucking dipshit moron that NEVER knows what they’re talking about.
Comment on Why didn't he just call on his powers to stop the bullet?
DBT@lemmy.world 2 days agoWhere can I find more information on this? I heard the same info from a right wing coworker I have conversations with occasionally.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 days ago
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Firstly, the burden of proof says it’s their job to demonstrate that Kirk was wearing a bulletproof vest in the first place (let alone that the bullet struck him in it first), not yours to debunk it. We’ve really lost sight of how important this is in recent years.
While much of this just shows extreme unlikelihood, the thickness of the alleged body armor is impossible to reconcile with the round and the weapon it was fired from.
DBT@lemmy.world 1 day ago
His main points were that see the body armor bounce when slowing the video way down, and that the caliber used would’ve blown his neck open, not just pierce the skin leaving a small, clean hole.
I think I already mentioned that I don’t know shit about guns, so my reply to that was, “huh.”
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Here’s what a 7.62x63 (“.30-06”) does to level III armor (think basic rifle protection, the kind that would actually stop the round that hit Kirk). This particular one is a large, very conspicuous plate of steel 8.5 mm thick and weighing 4 kg. You don’t just slot this in under your shirt and look inconspicuous.
And it would have to have been hard armor, i.e. a rigid plate. Soft armor 1) wouldn’t have stopped that round (that’d be more like a step down to level IIIA on the high end) and 2) would’ve embedded the round rather than ricocheting it.