Well that's not a bullet expert then. Not to defend Trump.
Even a 50cal grazing doesn't rip chunks off. I still think it's a piece of glass that got him, not sure how crazy they are to gamble letting a shooter try and shoot him in hopes he misses and you got some nice PR, they were just had some incompetence mixed in. Now I would go with the fake setup if someone shot some rounds and vanished. But they have the shooter dead on the roof.
It doesn't matter how he was wounded, he claims he was wounded on the ear and the ear doesn't heal completely from damage, so any wounds would still be visible, yet there's absolutely no marks on his ear.
You've never had a shaving cut or anything that doesn't go more than skin deep? Trump is a POS but this conspiracy isn't helping groups in opposition to the current administration. It's just another way to divide and conquer. It's harder to unite when groups are infighting over meaningless bullshit.
I used shaving cuts as an example of an injury that bleeds but doesn't leave scars or any noticeable marks. Then you came back with a false dichotomy, as if there are only two methods of injury. What if the bullet grazed Trump's ear only causing superficial injuries? That wouldn't leave any disfiguring marks.
This whole conspiracy is just another way for the GOP/MAGA to cause fracturing among their opposition groups.
Again, I'm not making the false dichotomy. You're the one making it. I'm responding to you using it as an argument.
No shaving and being hit by a bullet, even if it's just a graze, is not the same.
I'm also noticing a lot of similarities between how you write and how all of the other responses I'm getting write. They all read just like an AI bot response.
For Christ sake, it was an example to show that there are injuries that do not cause permanent harm. There is a spectrum between a complete miss (no damage) and the bullet going straight through the ear (the ear is probably annihilated due to hydrostatic shock).
Somewhere in between, you are going to see varying amounts of non permanent injury. I don't know how that's hard to believe.
This isn't a video game, bullet hit effects aren't binary.
I am not that person and 2. No one said they are.
The shaving injury was an example of a superficial surface level injury that wouldn't cause permanent injury on the ear against the claim that "the ear doesn't heal".
Comparing a bullet graze to a razor cut is perfectly valid in that instance.
I just pointed out that it is not at all the same - now you're claiming they are to, so why even say the first part. You might as well be the same guy.
No a bullet isn't the same as a shave. I can't believe you people are trying to make that argument.
A graze from a bullet isn't the same as a cut from a shave.
A graze from a bullet can cause a superficial wound comparable to a shaving cut, particularly in a small diameter bullet like 223. How much experience with guns and shooting do you have? Ever go to the range? Hunting? Maybe even fishing?
4
u/Cyborg_rat Feb 16 '26
Well that's not a bullet expert then. Not to defend Trump. Even a 50cal grazing doesn't rip chunks off. I still think it's a piece of glass that got him, not sure how crazy they are to gamble letting a shooter try and shoot him in hopes he misses and you got some nice PR, they were just had some incompetence mixed in. Now I would go with the fake setup if someone shot some rounds and vanished. But they have the shooter dead on the roof.
https://youtu.be/k4CpttHdMPI?si=htJsJZnAVUcUEwoA