• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I honestly cannot think of a less significant spot to be shot. Like this wouldn’t even get you a purple heart, would it?

    Then again, that presumes Trump has a brain so maybe I’m wrong about that.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      5 months ago

      I agree, about as insignificant as you can get. However, I think it would be eligible for a purple heart if it happened in a war.

      This is what the marines say:

      Eligibility for a Purple Heart applies to service members who suffered a wound: 1) As the direct or indirect result of enemy action, and 2) The wound required treatment by a medical officer at the time of the injury.

      https://www.woundedwarrior.marines.mil/Portals/213/Docs/WWR Fact Sheets/Purple Heart Fact Sheet (Benefit) - Released 12112017.pdf?ver=2017-12-12-110210-387

      Apparently he required treatment, so it would be severe enough for a purple heart if this were the result of enemy action, which it was not.

      Funny to think that there might be marines who got purple hearts for similarly trivial injuries though.

      • Xtallll
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        The shooter was a registered Republican, do those count as enemies of the country yet?

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        How much does the “officer” weigh there?

        Because medical officers are usually pretty much doctor level in the army I was in, and before them there’s your own medkit, and then there’s the medics who aren’t technically officers either.

        If it’s just “required treatment” essentially then yeah but if it’s “treatment by a medical officer”, then I don’t think this would qualify.

    • lmaydev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t know it’s pretty fucking close to a head shot. I’d be freaked the fuck out for sure.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Got me thinking. I’d rather be grazed on the skull or a limb. Does that count?

      Imagine someone using a hole punch on your ear. And funny enough, that’s about exactly the entrance hole for an AR-15 round.

      For those not in the know, an AR-15 round is a slightly heaver and much faster .22. Faster being the operative word. (The image is my poor joke.)

      • Drusas@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Lots of people get their ears pierced intentionally. A hole punch is a little bigger, but I could see people doing that willingly as well.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        Really? You think I’m talking about where he could’ve been shot versus where he was actually shot in this context?

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Tell me, did I say “more,” or “less”?

            Now is being shot through the brain more, or less significant than being shot through ear flesh?

        • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I am talking about where he was shot. I’d rather be shot in about a dozen other places than one inch away from instant death, I don’t know why that’s a controversial take.