As long as people are respectful and follow the guidelines, sure.
Edit: your other replies are not respectful and seem to violate the guidelines.
Edit 2: Anyone can be respectful to anyone else regardless of beliefs. Choosing not to be respectful doesn't say anything about the beliefs, it speaks as to the person being disrespectful. This will be my last edit/reply.
Is (1) a by-product of (2), or is (2) a by-product of (1)?
Some people are arguing that hollow points were designed for (1), causing the most damage, and that (2), stopping in the target, is just a side-effect of its true purpose.
I had to do an internet search. It was Pearl High School, and it looks like the principal only stopped the subject from leaving the school grounds. Who knows if the subject would have killed more elsewhere, the subject had already killed that day even before going to the school.
That's the thing, we'll never know how many shooting deaths were prevented by "a good guy with a gun", because we don't know if more people would have been shot and died if the shooter wasn't stopped.
I think I agree with you: It is difficult to identify between good and bad guys. A kid with a gun might be a good person making a terrible mistake which is why I wouldn't want to shoot him/her, especially if that person hasn't harmed anyone.
I edited "stop" to "prevent over-penetration" before I saw your reply. I meant about the bullet not going through anything and hitting someone unintentionally.
Yes, designed to expand in order to stop, not designed to expand in order to harm.
I do feel for the teacher; the situation is not ideal and I wouldn't want to have to shoot someone I'm supposed to take care of either.
I think it's good that this teacher sounds like someone who doesn't want to use his gun (not "trigger-happy"), I just hope in the unlikely situation where he would have to use it, that quality doesn't prevent him from stopping a threat before more harm is done.
"hollow points, rounds designed to swell upon impact to ensure maximum harm."
My understanding is that hollow points were designed to prevent over-penetration rather than to harm more. How does the author know it was designed to "ensure maximum harm"? I can't help but think it was intentional.
Edit: Of course now that I read the rest of the article after initially writing this comment, I see that quote is also highlighted in a text box (side note, what is that called when they do that?).
Yes, I am one of them. They are not a fly-by-night company with a random Kickstarter. Of course it was a calculated risk, but it was worth it at the time, and it seems to be panning out in my favor. If you consider everything that people preorder on Kickstarter without due diligence, it would stand to reason there are some people that do due diligence and preorder something like this.
Yeah, that is a bit disappointing. I would probably be irritated if it went into Q4, but considering I wouldn't know where to begin if I were to build a phone from scratch, I can't complain... too loudly.
I wonder how many people pre-ordered the phone. It might be a small-enough order, that they don't need to reserve parts with any one supplier as any decent supplier could fill the order on short notice.
I'm hoping the experience and feedback they get from this product run will justify the economics for them to itterate and push out a new hardware version in the future.