Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who wins

Wesley Gibson

Gibson also wins, Deadshot may not miss, but Gibson doesn't have to be in the direct line of sight to put a bullet in your head. His senses also allow him to slow time from his perspective.

AzPwiI-Cjc0

Deadshot has

9Uc3V8NxKWw

Wesley is good enough that he can literally shoot other people's bullets out of the air. What is Deadshot going to do against that?

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Wesley is good enough that he can literally shoot other people's bullets out of the air. What is Deadshot going to do against that?

Die?

Gibson has enhanced reflexes and better far better shooting feats. DS can't be win this unless through lucky shot.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Deadshot has

9Uc3V8NxKWw

Ha, been a long time since I've heard this music.

Deadshot needs 1 shot

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
Deadshot needs 1 shot

To get killed.

where are the Deadshot supporters at?

Deadshot wins. He shots a machine gun where Wesley has a single shooter. Also it takes a few seconds for Wesley to amp his adrenaline (to slow time).
The bell rings and Deadshot fires several bullets. Wesley isn't allowed to amp his adrenaline before the bell.

Also, Wesley needs cover to be effective.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Gibson has enhanced reflexes and better far better shooting feats. DS can't be win this unless through lucky shot.

He doesn't have better shooting feats.

Wesley has shot the wings off of flies. Sniped a guy using a pistol, around a corner, while standing on a moving train. Even shot a bullet out of the air. Towards the end of the film, he was switching between normal and bullet-time mode pretty much instantly.

And the notion that Wesley needs cover to be effective is laughable, considering the following. And these aren't some random zombie-like mooks. They're fellow trained Fraternity members:

37KddyjUxnQ

Originally posted by h1a8
He doesn't have better shooting feats.

Post the feats.

Originally posted by h1a8
He doesn't have better shooting feats.


They've even got similar shooting feats, with Wesley's being much better. Like when Wesley sniped Morgan Freeman from about halfway across a city, through, over, under and around objects as well as people. Floyd has nothing on Wesley, brah.

Originally posted by KingD19
They've even got similar shooting feats, with Wesley's being much better. Like when Wesley sniped Morgan Freeman from about halfway across a city, through, over, under and around objects as well as people. Floyd has nothing on Wesley, brah.

The sad thing is I posted a clip of that feat, but that didn't stop h1 from making such a retarded claim.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Wesley has shot the wings off of flies. Sniped a guy using a pistol, around a corner, while standing on a moving train. Even shot a bullet out of the air. Towards the end of the film, he was switching between normal and bullet-time mode pretty much instantly.

And the notion that Wesley needs cover to be effective is laughable, considering the following. And these aren't some random zombie-like mooks. They're fellow trained Fraternity members:

37KddyjUxnQ

The wings off a fly is probably the feat that can beat or match Deadshot's demonstration feat or ricochet feat. But he was amped at the time.
If Deadshot can see in slow motion then he too could shoot the wings off a fly.

No he wasn't. Either Wesley was in the mode or it took him a few seconds to get there. Show me a clip where he wasn't amped and then became amped instantly.

The reason why I said Wesley needs cover is because of Deadshot. Deadshot is not those weak Fraternity members.
Wesley's father and Jolie were so good that they need cover in order to fight each other.

Anyway, Wesley wins if he starts amped but loses if he starts normal.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The sad thing is I posted a clip of that feat, but that didn't stop h1 from making such a retarded claim.

That feat is weak compared to what Deadshot did. Wesley had a telescope to view the target. Deadshot could have made that shot in his sleep using the same equipment.
Could Wesley do what Deadshot did? Hell no!

Originally posted by h1a8
That feat is weak compared to what Deadshot did. Wesley had a telescope to view the target. Deadshot could have made that shot in his sleep using the same equipment.
Could Wesley do what Deadshot did? Hell no!

Prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
The wings off a fly is probably the feat that can beat or match Deadshot's demonstration feat or ricochet feat. But he was amped at the time.
If Deadshot can see in slow motion then he too could shoot the wings off a fly.

Shooting the wings off of three flies (considering a house fly beats its wings about 200 times a second) is way better than anything DS did. And what does that have to do with anything? The question was who actually has the better onscreen shooting feats. What you think DS might be capable of if he had the same abilities is completely irrelevant. He doesn't have them.

Originally posted by h1a8

No he wasn't. Either Wesley was in the mode or it took him a few seconds to get there. Show me a clip where he wasn't amped and then became amped instantly.


There is more than one instance where he shifts very quickly. Like when he and Fox assassinate the guy in the car. Wesley is driving normally, then flips the car off of Fox's, and by the time he is upside down, he is in amped mode (still tells the guy "I'm sorry" as he shoots him in the chest). There is zero evidence that he was in slowmo mode before the car flipped. So if you want to argue that he was, you have to prove it.


Originally posted by h1a8

The reason why I said Wesley needs cover is because of Deadshot. Deadshot is not those weak Fraternity members.
Wesley's father and Jolie were so good that they need cover in order to fight each other.


Using that logic, I can say that Deadshot is only effective with cover, as Wesley isn't one of those weak fodder DS shot.

Wow Silent. I go to work and come back to this lol.

H1a8, you're reaching hard. "If A can do the same as B, he'd be just as good." Yeah, if a regular guy suddenly became a Kryptonian on par with Superman, he could do everything Clark could. But that's not what this is. It's "A vs B" and B just so happens to have special powers that make this a huge stomp for him.

Nothing Deadshot did is out of Wesley's ability, but the exact opposite is true as almost everything Wesley has done, Deadshot can never do in his wildest dreams. He loses 10/10.

Oh, and claiming Wesley needs cover is hilarious. Even with cover, he fought people who curve bullets around corners and objects with such accuracy they routinely score headshots without even seeing what they're shooting at. If anyone needs cover it's Floyd.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Shooting the wings off of three flies (considering a house fly beats its wings about 200 times a second) is way better than anything DS did. And what does that have to do with anything? The question was who actually has the better onscreen shooting feats. What you think DS might be capable of if he had the same abilities is completely irrelevant. He doesn't have them.



There is more than one instance where he shifts very quickly. Like when he and Fox assassinate the guy in the car. Wesley is driving normally, then flips the car off of Fox's, and by the time he is upside down, he is in amped mode (still tells the guy "I'm sorry" as he shoots him in the chest). There is zero evidence that he was in slowmo mode before the car flipped. So if you want to argue that he was, you have to prove it.





Using that logic, I can say that Deadshot is only effective with cover, as Wesley isn't one of those weak fodder DS shot.

The fly feat was good because of hitting a fast moving target, not because of pinpoint accuracy. DS shooting feats from pinpoint accuracy is better. It's a lot harder to hit a 1mm target from 100-300 feet away, many times repeatedly than it is to hit a 5mm target from a few feet away. It's not even close.

That's why I said they are close to equals. One is more accurate and the other has a faster perception.

Wesley was nervous as hell the entire time. He never wanted to kill anyone. That's why he said, "I'm sorry". Also he managed to flip the car by BEING AMPED. That's huge evidence he was amped.

So again. The bell rings and DS gets off 10 shots instantly. Wesley doesn't have a chance unless he starts amped. Being able to shoot 1 bullet out of the air isn't enough. Remember DS has a machine gun.

You still haven't proven that Deadshot can match the sniper example I posted.

Originally posted by KingD19
Wow Silent. I go to work and come back to this lol.

H1a8, you're reaching hard. "If A can do the same as B, he'd be just as good." Yeah, if a regular guy suddenly became a Kryptonian on par with Superman, he could do everything Clark could. But that's not what this is. It's "A vs B" and B just so happens to have special powers that make this a huge stomp for him.

Nothing Deadshot did is out of Wesley's ability, but the exact opposite is true as almost everything Wesley has done, Deadshot can never do in his wildest dreams. He loses 10/10.

Oh, and claiming Wesley needs cover is hilarious. Even with cover, he fought people who curve bullets around corners and objects with such accuracy they routinely score headshots without even seeing what they're shooting at. If anyone needs cover it's Floyd.

Can Wesley hit a 1mm size target from over 100 yards away repeatedly (at least 20 times) without the use of a scope?

Originally posted by h1a8
Can Wesley hit a 1mm size target from over 100 yards away repeatedly (at least 20 times) without the use of a scope?

Sometimes I think you see a thread and you decide who wins by merely just going with the opposite of who a majority of people think will win.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You still haven't proven that Deadshot can match the sniper example I posted. That wasn't a good feat. DS could do that in his sleep. Wesley used a telescope. He didn't use his naked eye. DS, with his naked eye, hitting a 1mm^2 target over 20 times in a row from more than 100 yards away IS BETTER than hitting a 2500mm^2 target from 3000 yards away. Give DS the same scope and he can extend that range more than 10 times (longer than Wesley's shot).

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof.

Originally posted by Surtur
Sometimes I think you see a thread and you decide who wins by merely just going with the opposite of who a majority of people think will win. Stop derailing the thread and debate. I'm a scientist. You guys are not. I argue based off logic, not popularity. Refute my argument or don't debate. Enough with the flame posts.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof.

Easy, it's called magnification.

The size of a 1mm^2 target from 100m away would appear a lot smaller than a 2500mm^2 target from 3000 yards away with the naked eye. Add the fact that Wesley used a SCOPE to see his target clearly makes it a bs feat in comparison.

Prove that Deadshot can replicate the sniper feet.

Originally posted by h1a8
Can Wesley hit a 1mm size target from over 100 yards away repeatedly (at least 20 times) without the use of a scope?

I don't recall DS having any such feat as this.

.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I don't recall DS having any such feat as this.


He doesn't, h1 is lying as usual

Originally posted by FrothByte
I don't recall DS having any such feat as this.

To shoot a bullet into the same bullet hole over 20 times without making the bullet hole bigger means that DS was accurate to the nearest mm from over 100 yards REPEATEDLY.

Originally posted by h1a8
To shoot a bullet into the same bullet hole over 20 times without making the bullet hole bigger means that DS was accurate to the nearest mm.

I'm glad that he's very accurate at extremely short range, now provide proof that DS can replicate the sniper shot.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm glad that he's very accurate at extremely short range, now provide proof that DS can replicate the sniper shot.

So you don't understand science? Fair enough. I'll speak in your language.
Easy. Give him the special gun with the special bullet with the scope then he would do it easily. That's what DS do. Suspension of disbelief is heavily on his side.

It's called common sense.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof.

Gibson is able to accomplish his insanity-level shooting feats not just through his gear, but also his power-set.

BTW, does anyone else find it amusing that the DS feat he is basing his entire argument on never happened?


If he was just going to make up feats, why didn't he make up a feat that would actually help his stance?

Originally posted by h1a8
To shoot a bullet into the same bullet hole over 20 times without making the bullet hole bigger means that DS was accurate to the nearest mm from over 100 yards REPEATEDLY.

That was not 100 yards. Stop making stuff up.

Also, anyone who can easily shoot the wings off a fly is accurate enough to shoot a bullet into the same target spot more than 20 times over. That's like asking a person who's running if he can jog.

Originally posted by FrothByte
That was not 100 yards. Probably 50 at most. Also, anyone who can easily shoot the wings off a fly without killing it is accurate enough to shoot a bullet into the same target spot more than 20 times over. That's like asking a person who's running if he can jog.

If he's talking about the firing range scene, that wasn't even close to 50 yards; let alone 100.

50 yards would be half a football field.

Originally posted by FrothByte
That was not 100 yards. Stop making stuff up.

Also, anyone who can easily shoot the wings off a fly is accurate enough to shoot a bullet into the same target spot more than 20 times over. That's like asking a person who's running if he can jog. How far was it then?

Hitting a (5mm)^2 target from a few feet away is garbage compared to hitting a 1mm^2 target from over 100 yards away. It's not debatable.

Originally posted by FrothByte
That was not 100 yards. Stop making stuff up.

Also, anyone who can easily shoot the wings off a fly is accurate enough to shoot a bullet into the same target spot more than 20 times over. That's like asking a person who's running if he can jog.

This is true, lesser feats are assumed possible if a greater is shown, within reason of course.

Originally posted by h1a8
How far was it then?

Hitting a (5mm)^2 target from a few feet away is garbage compared to hitting a 1mm^2 target from over 100 yards away. It's not debatable.

Unfortunately for you, DS never hit a 1mm target from 100 yards away. If he has, please cite the scene.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Unfortunately for you, DS never hit a 1mm target from 100 yards away. If he has, please cite the scene.
We don't know the distance. It could have been anywhere from 40-100 yards. What's usually the farthest target at a typical gun range?

I'll end this.
Hitting a 25mm^2 target from a half meter away vs hitting a 1mm^2 target from 40m away.

Hitting a 1mm^2 target from 40 yards away is the same as hitting 25mm^2 target from 200yards away.
But DS did it REPEATEDLY which is astronomically harder than doing it 2 times.

Originally posted by h1a8
We don't know the distance. It could have been anywhere from 40-100 yards. What's usually the farthest target at a typical gun range?

I'll end this.
Hitting a 25mm^2 target from a half meter away vs hitting a 1mm^2 target from 40m away.

Hitting a 1mm^2 target from 40 yards away is the same as hitting 25mm^2 target from 200yards away.
But DS did it REPEATEDLY which is astronomically harder than doing it 2 times.

You're claiming it was 100 yards, so prove it.


Here is the scene, since I know you've never seen it. GllOru0-X2w

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're claiming it was 100 yards, so prove it.


Here is the scene, since I know you've never seen it. GllOru0-X2w

My latest post said between 40 and 100 yards. Keep up.

Originally posted by h1a8
My latest post said between 40 and 100 yards. Keep up.

Prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
We don't know the distance. It could have been anywhere from 40-100 yards. What's usually the farthest target at a typical gun range?

I'll end this.
Hitting a 25mm^2 target from a half meter away vs hitting a 1mm^2 target from 40m away.

Hitting a 1mm^2 target from 40 yards away is the same as hitting 25mm^2 target from 200yards away.
But DS did it REPEATEDLY which is astronomically harder than doing it 2 times.

based on the video that Silent provided, I'd say that was max 30 yards. Also if I'm not mistaken, bullet diameters are quite bigger than 1 mm which would make it impossible for DS to actually make a 1mm hole. So your numbers are way off.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it. stop trolling me please. Read my post above your reply and you will see it.

Originally posted by h1a8
stop trolling me please. Read my post above your reply and you will see it.

You're still including 100 yards as a possible length, so prove it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
based on the video that Silent provided, I'd say that was max 30 yards. Also if I'm not mistaken, bullet diameters are quite bigger than 1 mm which would make it impossible for DS to actually make a 1mm hole. So your numbers are way off. it was definitely more than 30 yards (the furthest target). To shoot a bullet in a bullet hole many times without making the hole larger means that the accuracy has to be to the mm.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're still including 100 yards as a possible length, so prove it. I can say between 40 and a billion yards and still be correct. The key word is between. Do you understand basic English?

Originally posted by h1a8
it was definitely more than 30 yards (the furthest target). To shoot a bullet in a bullet hole many times without making the hole larger means that the accuracy has to be to the mm.

Prove that it was "definitely more than 30 yards".

Originally posted by h1a8
I can say between 40 and a billion yards and still be correct. The key word is between. Do you understand basic English?


So you admit that it's not even close to 100 yards and that you're only continuing to say 100 yards in order to make the feat sound far more impressive than it actually is.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove that it was "definitely more than 30 yards".

It can't be proven. I'm going by baseball distance. It's definitely seems further than 2nd base to 1st base (90feet).

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you admit that it's not even close to 100 yards and that you're only continuing to say 100 yards in order to make the feat sound far more impressive than it actually is.

Thank you.

False, I don't admit that.

Originally posted by h1a8
It can't be proven. I'm going by baseball distance. It's definitely seems further than 2nd base to 1st base (90feet).

IOW, you're making things up again.

Is there anything else you'd like to admit to lying about?

Originally posted by h1a8
False, I don't admit that.

Then explain why you started off claiming it was 100 yards.

Still don't know where you got the number 1mm from because most bullet diameters are quite larger than 1mm.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Then explain why you started off claiming it was 100 yards. Because I believed it was more than 100 yards.I looked up the scene far before you posted it and said between 40 and 100 yards. If it was 100 yards then I wouldn't be surprised. We don't know the actual distance.

Originally posted by h1a8
Because I believed it was more than 100 yards.I looked up the scene far before you posted it and said between 40 and 100 yards. If it was 100 yards then I wouldn't be surprised. We don't know the actual distance.

See, you're still trying to claim that it might have been 100 yards.

Prove it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Still don't know where you got the number 1mm from because most bullet diameters are quite larger than 1mm. That means you didn't understand. I'm used to it as I teach math. To shoot a bullet into the same bullet hole without increasing the hole size requires mm or better accuracy. For example, being slightly off from pure center would make the hole larger (hitting off center of the hole). DS shot many bullets in the same hole without making the hole larger.

Originally posted by h1a8
The fly feat was good because of hitting a fast moving target, not because of pinpoint accuracy. DS shooting feats from pinpoint accuracy is better. It's a lot harder to hit a 1mm target from 100-300 feet away, many times repeatedly than it is to hit a 5mm target from a few feet away. It's not even close.

That's why I said they are close to equals. One is more accurate and the other has a faster perception.

He didn't shoot a 5mm target. He shot the wing joints, so the wings came cleanly off. That is a WAY smaller target than 5mm. It's less than 1mm. And the targets were buzzing about. So no, it is not even close. Wesley's feat is better.


Originally posted by h1a8

Wesley was nervous as hell the entire time. He never wanted to kill anyone. That's why he said, "I'm sorry". Also he managed to flip the car by BEING AMPED. That's huge evidence he was amped.

So you don't actually remember the scene then. Wesley had a smug smile on his face as he was casually, and sarcastically, saying "I'm sorry", as he plugged the guy in the chest. And prove he was amped when he flipped the car. He and Fox used two cars to do it. So show this "huge" evidence. Because there are zero visual or audible clues that he was amped before the flip. And I want actual screen evidence. Not more of your own opinion.


Originally posted by h1a8

So again. The bell rings and DS gets off 10 shots instantly. Wesley doesn't have a chance unless he starts amped. Being able to shoot 1 bullet out of the air isn't enough. Remember DS has a machine gun.

So again, you basically ignore evidence and script the fight how you want it to go, to give you favourite the win.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
He didn't shoot a 5mm target. He shot the wing joints, so the wings came cleanly off. That is a WAY smaller target than 5mm. It's less than 1mm. And the targets were buzzing about. So no, it is not even close. Wesley's feat is better.




So you don't actually remember the scene then. Wesley had a smug smile on his face as he was casually, and sarcastically, saying "I'm sorry", as he plugged the guy in the chest. And prove he was amped when he flipped the car. He and Fox used two cars to do it. So show this "huge" evidence. Because there are zero visual or audible clues that he was amped before the flip. And I want actual screen evidence. Not more of your own opinion.




So again, you basically ignore evidence and script the fight how you want it to go, to give you favourite the win.

How do you know the tip of the bullet struck the joint? The diameter of a 9mm bullet is large enough to completely destroy the fly and part of the wing if the bullet tip hit the joint. The bullet is too wide to only hit the joint and nothing else. Flies are small. Also the tip of a typical 9mm bullet is about 3-5mm in diameter (they are blunt and not pin point). This means that Wesley has 6-10mm to work with.

Explain how Wesley is able to flip the car like that without being amped.
No fraternity member can perform crazy feats without being amped first.
You don't have to see signs of someone being amped (like slow motion) for them to be actually amped. There were many scenes where different fraternity members (including Wesley) were amped without the camera slowing time down.

DS was within 1mm accurate from 40-100 yards away, not a few feet away.
Also, it is ASTRONOMICALLY harder to hit the same shot within 1mm of accuracy MANY TIMES than it is to hit it with that same degree of accuracy 1 or 2 times.

Originally posted by h1a8
That means you didn't understand. I'm used to it as I teach math. To shoot a bullet into the same bullet hole without increasing the hole size requires mm or better accuracy. For example, being slightly off from pure center would make the hole larger (hitting off center of the hole). DS shot many bullets in the same hole without making the hole larger.

So basically you made up that 1mm number. Got it. Even if you're hitting the same place over and over again, that's not a 1 mm target. And you have zero proof that the hole was not getting larger, even by a few mm. LIterally, no proof.

Originally posted by h1a8
How do you know the tip of the bullet struck the joint? The diameter of a 9mm bullet is large enough to completely destroy the fly and part of the wing if the bullet tip hit the joint. The bullet is too wide to only hit the joint and nothing else. Flies are small. Also the tip of a typical 9mm bullet is about 3-5mm in diameter (they are blunt and not pin point). This means that Wesley has 6-10mm to work with.

Explain how Wesley is able to flip the car like that without being amped.
No fraternity member can perform crazy feats without being amped first.
You don't have to see signs of someone being amped (like slow motion) for them to be actually amped. There were many scenes where different fraternity members (including Wesley) were amped without the camera slowing time down.

DS was within 1mm accurate from 40-100 yards away, not a few feet away.
Also, it is ASTRONOMICALLY harder to hit the same shot within 1mm of accuracy MANY TIMES than it is to hit it 1 or 2 times.

Let me put it to you this way. In real life, there are marksmen good enough to hit the same spot more than once. Maybe not as fast and not as consistently as DS but it is possible. Even archers are able to do it when they hit the back of their own arrows.

But there has never been (in my knowledge) any person who was able to intentionally shoot the wings off of a fly. Heck, I doubt any person is able to hit a fly with a bullet let alone just shooting off his wings. That should give you an idea of the difference in skill required in the two scenarios.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So basically you made up that 1mm number. Got it. Even if you're hitting the same place over and over again, that's not a 1 mm target. And you have zero proof that the hole was not getting larger, even by a few mm. LIterally, no proof.
The bullet hole appeared the same size AFTER he shot MANY bullets through it. It was the writer's intentions that DS shot the bullets through the holes cleanly. I just said 1mm to be generous. In reality, it was infinitesimal (infinitely close to 0) small accuracy.

Originally posted by h1a8
Stop derailing the thread and debate. I'm a scientist. You guys are not. I argue based off logic, not popularity. Refute my argument or don't debate. Enough with the flame posts.

What can be said that hasn't already been said? You just don't accept things. The clip of the end of Wanted when Morgan Freeman is killed was more than enough to cement victory for Wesley, but you don't want to face that fact.

Also wait did you just claim to be a scientist?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Let me put it to you this way. In real life, there are marksmen good enough to hit the same spot more than once. Maybe not as fast and not as consistently as DS but it is possible. Even archers are able to do it when they hit the back of their own arrows.

But there has never been (in my knowledge) any person who was able to intentionally shoot the wings off of a fly. Heck, I doubt any person is able to hit a fly with a bullet let alone just shooting off his wings. That should give you an idea of the difference in skill required in the two scenarios.

Wrong, no human can hit the same target within 1mm apart more than 2 times. The chances that they could do so even once is beyond imagination.

I'm referring from 40-100 yards away. Hitting the back of an arrow is not 1mm accuracy. The diameter of an arrow and it's back is much larger than 1mm.

Originally posted by Surtur
What can be said that hasn't already been said? You just don't accept things. The clip of the end of Wanted when Morgan Freeman is killed was more than enough to cement victory for Wesley, but you don't want to face that fact.

Also wait did you just claim to be a scientist?


That wasn't a good feat at all. Wesley had a SPECIAL GUN, a SPECIAL BULLET, and a PHUCKING POWERFUL SCOPE. I can see if Wesley did it with his naked eye with a normal gun with a normal bullet. Plus Morgan Freeman's forehead is MANY TIMES LARGER than 1mm.

Basically increasing the size of a target by 50 times allows to 50 times more distance. And using a scope than amplifies sight allows many times more distance on TOP OF THAT.
A master sniper can hit a target from a mile away USING A POWERFUL SCOPE. Without a scope then his range is severely limited.

Originally posted by h1a8
How do you know the tip of the bullet struck the joint? The diameter of a 9mm bullet is large enough to completely destroy the fly and part of the wing if the bullet tip hit the joint. The bullet is too wide to only hit the joint and nothing else. Flies are small. Also the tip of a typical 9mm bullet is about 3-5mm in diameter (they are blunt and not pin point). This means that Wesley has 6-10mm to work with.

Because we visibly see the three flies and their cleanly severed wings in Sloan's palm. And are you actually trying to apply RL dynamics to a movie where people were shooting bullets around corners?

Originally posted by h1a8

Explain how Wesley is able to flip the car like that without being amped.
No fraternity member can perform crazy feats without being amped first.
You don't have to see signs of someone being amped (like slow motion) for them to be actually amped. There were many scenes where different fraternity members (including Wesley) were amped without the camera slowing time down.


I already told you how it happened. He rode his car onto the hood of Fox's, at an angle, and flipped it over. Cars have been flipped in a similar manner in RL before. Real people can't accelerate their heart to over 400 beats a minute via willpower. So good job presenting absolutely zero proper evidence to support your claim.

Originally posted by h1a8

DS was within 1mm accurate from 40-100 yards away, not a few feet away.
Also, it is ASTRONOMICALLY harder to hit the same shot within 1mm of accuracy MANY TIMES than it is to hit it with that same degree of accuracy 1 or 2 times.

And shooting a guy around a corner, without the aid of a ricochet, literally defies the laws of physics, yet Wesley can do it.

Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong, no human can hit the same target within 1mm apart more than 2 times. The chances that they could do so even once is beyond imagination.

I'm referring from 40-100 yards away. Hitting the back of an arrow is not 1mm accuracy. The diameter of an arrow and it's back is much larger than 1mm.

Again, you have no proof that DS didn't hit the same target without any deviation of 1mm. You can't say "Because the hole didn't look bigger" because you literally won't be able to see 1mm difference from that distance. This is common sense dude.

Also, 40-100 yards is a made up number. If you knew anything about judging distances especially indoors you'd know that those targets were around 30 yards max.

Finally, you know nothing about archery. If you don't hit the back of your arrow at the exact center then your arrow will veer off to the side. For you to actually jam your arrow through another arrow, you have to hit the exact center. So yes, it is possible for normal humans to hit the exact same target more than once.

Now answer me this, give e an example of a person shooting a fly.

Originally posted by h1a8
That wasn't a good feat at all. Wesley had a SPECIAL GUN, a SPECIAL BULLET, and a PHUCKING POWERFUL SCOPE. I can see if Wesley did it with his naked eye with a normal gun with a normal bullet. Plus Morgan Freeman's forehead is MANY TIMES LARGER than 1mm.

Basically increasing the size of a target by 50 times allows to 50 times more distance. And using a scope than amplifies sight allows many times more distance on TOP OF THAT.
A master sniper can hit a target from a mile away USING A POWERFUL SCOPE. Without a scope then his range is severely limited.

So wait, are you saying you feel someone in the real world could pull off that shot if given the same equipment?

Originally posted by Surtur
So wait, are you saying you feel someone in the real world could pull off that shot if given the same equipment?

h1 actually thinks he could match the feat if he had the same equipment.

How did this get to four(!) pages?

SMDH,, h1 still being ignorant

Originally posted by Utrigita
How did this get to four(!) pages?

h1 still can't tell the difference between facts and his opinion.

Originally posted by Silent Master
h1 still can't tell the difference between facts and his opinion.

No, no, no. It's h1 thinking his opinion is better than facts.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
SMDH,, h1 still being ignorant
Originally posted by Silent Master
h1 still can't tell the difference between facts and his opinion.
Originally posted by KingD19
No, no, no. It's h1 thinking his opinion is better than facts.

Suddenly everything makes sense.

Edit: Made it to five, I apologise.

Originally posted by KingD19
No, no, no. It's h1 thinking his opinion is better than facts.

Nope. It's H1 thinking that just because he said so makes it a fact.

Ironic, you do the same thing, also you have no room for smart ass comments. You literally said Hulkbuster cant hurt warriors 3 cause its made by tony stark.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Because we visibly see the three flies and their cleanly severed wings in Sloan's palm. And are you actually trying to apply RL dynamics to a movie where people were shooting bullets around corners?
Yes I am trying to apply RL to a movie. Otherwise, he can't prove anything. If a bullet can hit the joint of a fly without striking the fly or the wing then certainly the bullet can strike the wing square on and knock it off the fly by the joint. Both are equally stupid, but I choose the latter.
And bullets can curve theoretically (definitely if thrown a certain way). It depends on the spin and the velocity of the bullet. Like a curve ball in baseball.
Bottomline: All that matters is if it is within the suspension of disbelief.



I just rewatched the scene. Wesley at that point already was in control of his ability. He was already in amped mode when he first shot at the target at the bulletproof window and driving very fast.

It is either theoretically possible or within the suspension of disbelief. It takes very fast hands to achieve this, assuming it is theoretically possible.

Originally posted by Surtur
So wait, are you saying you feel someone in the real world could pull off that shot if given the same equipment?

No, I'm saying it's possible that someone can. DS most certainly can do it.
Remember Wesley's ability gives him slower perception and super speed, not necessarily super aim. In one scene (after Wesley was able to shoot the wings off the fly) he was training in target practice and his shots were all over the place. He shot the paper target several times and the bullet holes were spread.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Again, you have no proof that DS didn't hit the same target without any deviation of 1mm. You can't say "Because the hole didn't look bigger" because you literally won't be able to see 1mm difference from that distance. This is common sense dude.

Also, 40-100 yards is a made up number. If you knew anything about judging distances especially indoors you'd know that those targets were around 30 yards max.

Finally, you know nothing about archery. If you don't hit the back of your arrow at the exact center then your arrow will veer off to the side. For you to actually jam your arrow through another arrow, you have to hit the exact center. So yes, it is possible for normal humans to hit the exact same target more than once.

Now answer me this, give e an example of a person shooting a fly.

The proof is that the hole didn't look any bigger than a single bullet hole and MOST IMPORTANTLY it was the INTENTION OF THE WRITER.

If you don't accept that proof then try this:

If each shot was off 1mm or more then 10 shots would be off 1 cm (which is 2 bullet hole sizes). The fact the DS fired many bullets in the same hole without the hole appearing larger than a single bullet hole proves he had at least 1mm accuracy with most of his shots.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yes I am trying to apply RL to a movie. Otherwise, he can't prove anything. If a bullet can hit the joint of a fly without striking the fly or the wing then certainly the bullet can strike the wing square on and knock it off the fly by the joint. Both are equally stupid, but I choose the latter.
And bullets can curve theoretically (definitely if thrown a certain way). It depends on the spin and the velocity of the bullet. Like a curve ball in baseball.
Bottomline: All that matters is if it is within the suspension of disbelief.

And the key phrase there is "I choose the latter". So, with that, I am fully entitled to choose the former as an explanation. The point of the film was that these guys could do things that are supposedly, "impossible".

Hell, take the heartbeat thing. If your heart actually had to speed up that fast, to over 400 beats a minute, you'd have very serious problems. Not gain abilities.

And throwing things doesn't exactly apply the same way here. When people curve a baseball, the ball doesn't need to travel along a narrow, straight barrel first.

Originally posted by h1a8

I just rewatched the scene. Wesley at that point already was in control of his ability. He was already in amped mode when he first shot at the target at the bulletproof window and driving very fast.

So he was amped because he shot a window while driving? That's not exactly solid evidence. Action stars across a score of different movies have fired at people while driving before, and the vast majority of them did not have superpowers.

Originally posted by h1a8

It is either theoretically possible or within the suspension of disbelief. It takes very fast hands to achieve this, assuming it is theoretically possible.

To shoot around a curve, like they actually did it in the film, would only be possible if we start applying quantum mechanics. And quantum mechanics also says that it is theoretically possible to move right through a brick wall. So not really useful in application here.

I see that h1 is still trying to pass off his opinion as fact.

Originally posted by h1a8
No, I'm saying it's possible that someone can. DS most certainly can do it.
Remember Wesley's ability gives him slower perception and super speed, not necessarily super aim. In one scene (after Wesley was able to shoot the wings off the fly) he was training in target practice and his shots were all over the place. He shot the paper target several times and the bullet holes were spread..

Hmm okay. So what kind of scientist are you supposed to be?

Originally posted by h1a8


The proof is that the hole didn't look any bigger than a single bullet hole and MOST IMPORTANTLY it was the INTENTION OF THE WRITER.

If you don't accept that proof then try this:

If each shot was off 1mm or more then 10 shots would be off 1 cm (which is 2 bullet hole sizes). The fact the DS fired many bullets in the same hole without the hole appearing larger than a single bullet hole proves he had at least 1mm accuracy with most of his shots.

1. Most bullet diameters will be around 1 cm, which means a 1 cm hole is the size of ONE bullet, not 2.

2. If he was hitting his target at not exactly the same spot but say with a 1 mm deviation, whatever the overlapping area of his shots were would be where the hole would be bored through. It wouldn't necessarily be any bigger in size than 1 bullet's diameter worth because you need multiple shots to make the hole and only in the spot where it overlaps will the hole be.

3. You claimed that the targets were between 40 - 100 yards (a number that's completely off mind you) and then you claimed that you can clearly see that he didn't even deviate by 1 mm. Do you hear yourself? You can't see such a tiny measurement from a distance like that.

4. You don't know what writer's intention is. Stop making stuff up.

5. You still haven't addressed my point that people in the real world are able to hit the exact same spot they previously hit as I mentioned in my archery example. Yet no person in the world (that we know of) has ever shot a fly.

Like you made up "Asgardians cannot be hurt by Hulkbuster cause its made by Tony Stark"

You seriously need to stop making stuff up.

Originally posted by FrothByte
1. Most bullet diameters will be around 1 cm, which means a 1 cm hole is the size of ONE bullet, not 2.



No, I said if the shots are within 1cm distance then at worst the size of the hole would be 2cm in length.

But you must understand that if he puts MANY bullets through the same hole then the Vast majority of them were within 1mm of the first shot.

We do not know exact distance. The scene gave a close up to the bullet holes After the demonstration. The hole looked exactly like ONE bullet went through. This was the writer's intention.

Of course I do. It's common sense. A close up was shown and the hole looked exactly like one bullet went through. The makers of the movie created the SINGLE HOLE in the target. Will Smith obviously didn't shoot the hole in the target. He's just an actor pretending. The hole was created by the set workers. It was a single hole created to APPEAR AS A SINGLE BULLET HOLE.




I did. You didn't read my reply? I rebutted it beautifully.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
And the key phrase there is "I choose the latter". So, with that, I am fully entitled to choose the former as an explanation. The point of the film was that these guys could do things that are supposedly, "impossible".
Agreed. Since Both are reasonable explanations then we can't know for sure.
agreed. But we assume they were mutants since it was implied that only a few could do it. Thus we still have the suspension of disbelief.
irrelevant, since I said THEORETICALLY. A baseball and bullet could theoretically be thrown horizontal to the ground (similar to traveling through a narrow straight barrel) while being spinned.


It was established in the movie that fraternity members are amped when they are shooting at a target. It would make 0 sense not to be.


If you can spin the bullet with sufficient angular velocity while it is traveling through the barrel then it is possible. Otherwise, it is impossible.

The bullet was possibly thrown out of the the gun at an angle with a spin on it. For example, as the bullet is traveling through the barrel the shooter flicks his hand at an incredible speed and causes the bullet to strike the inside of the barrel and come out of the nozzle at an angle with a huge spin.

Originally posted by h1a8
No, I said if the shots are within 1cm distance then at worst the size of the hole would be 2cm in length.

But you must understand that if he puts MANY bullets through the same hole then the Vast majority of them were within 1mm of the first shot.

We do not know exact distance. The scene gave a close up to the bullet holes After the demonstration. The hole looked exactly like ONE bullet went through. This was the writer's intention.

Of course I do. It's common sense. A close up was shown and the hole looked exactly like one bullet went through. The makers of the movie created the SINGLE HOLE in the target. Will Smith obviously didn't shoot the hole in the target. He's just an actor pretending. The hole was created by the set workers. It was a single hole created to APPEAR AS A SINGLE BULLET HOLE.




I did. You didn't read my reply? I rebutted it beautifully.

So now you're conceding that DS didn't shoot at exactly the same spot every single time but rather within 1mm distance from his first shots?

And no, you did not rebut my point about the arrow and the fly. I went back through your post and not once did you mention it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So now you're conceding that DS didn't shoot at exactly the same spot every single time but rather within 1mm distance from his first shots?

And no, you did not rebut my point about the arrow and the fly. I went back through your post and not once did you mention it. No im not conceding it. Just arguing another point (tangent).

I apologize. I had but didn't hit submit on my computer. Don't know why it wasn't there?

I'll just address it now.
An arrow and target are generally larger than 1mm in diameter. So hitting the same target (or shooting the back of an arrow with another arrow) doesn't mean 1mm accuracy. Also hitting a target MANY TIMES IN A Row with a deviation of 1mm or less is astronomically HARDER than hitting it ONCE.

"Asgardians cannot be hurt by Hulkbuster cause its made by Tony Stark"

Frothbyte

Originally posted by h1a8
No im not conceding it. Just arguing another point (tangent).

I apologize. I had but didn't hit submit on my computer. Don't know why it wasn't there?

I'll just address it now.
An arrow and target are generally larger than 1mm in diameter. So hitting the same target (or shooting the back of an arrow with another arrow) doesn't mean 1mm accuracy. Also hitting a target MANY TIMES IN A Row with a deviation of 1mm or less is astronomically HARDER than hitting it ONCE.

Arrow diameters are usually smaller than bullet diameters. And like I mentioned before, you have to hit the arrow at the exact center otherwise your arrow will deflect to the side.

And yes, hitting the same spot multiple times in a row is harder but I'm just showing that DS's feat is at least partially doable in real life. But you won't find anyone who can even approach the feat of shooting a fly let alone it's wings

Originally posted by h1a8
Agreed. Since Both are reasonable explanations then we can't know for sure.
agreed. But we assume they were mutants since it was implied that only a few could do it. Thus we still have the suspension of disbelief.
irrelevant, since I said THEORETICALLY. A baseball and bullet could theoretically be thrown horizontal to the ground (similar to traveling through a narrow straight barrel) while being spinned.

Unless you can post a clip of someone curving a baseball in a circle, and hitting themselves in the temple with it, it is not quite the same. Because that is one of the more extreme examples of a bullet curve we see onscreen.

Originally posted by h1a8

It was established in the movie that fraternity members are amped when they are shooting at a target. It would make 0 sense not to be.

So you are claiming every single shot in the film was done while amped? Okay, prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8

If you can spin the bullet with sufficient angular velocity while it is traveling through the barrel then it is possible. Otherwise, it is impossible.

The bullet was possibly thrown out of the the gun at an angle with a spin on it. For example, as the bullet is traveling through the barrel the shooter flicks his hand at an incredible speed and causes the bullet to strike the inside of the barrel and come out of the nozzle at an angle with a huge spin.

The Germans tried to do something similar by making curved barrels to shoot over/around things during WW2. There is a reason the invention did not last until today. It was not very successful. Often the bullets would fragment into tiny pieces, the barrels would break after relatively few shots, and a lot of the energy would be lost because of the bullet hitting and the scraping along the curve as it moved down the barrel.

So there is a much better chance that the bullet would simply fragment as it hit the inside of the barrel, as opposed to flying around a 90 degree corner.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Unless you can post a clip of someone curving a baseball in a circle, and hitting themselves in the temple with it, it is not quite the same. Because that is one of the more extreme examples of a bullet curve we see onscreen.



So you are claiming every single shot in the film was done while amped? Okay, prove it.



The Germans tried to do something similar by making curved barrels to shoot over/around things during WW2. There is a reason the invention did not last until today. It was not very successful. Often the bullets would fragment into tiny pieces, the barrels would break after relatively few shots, and a lot of the energy would be lost because of the bullet hitting and the scraping along the curve as it moved down the barrel.

So there is a much better chance that the bullet would simply fragment as it hit the inside of the barrel, as opposed to flying around a 90 degree corner.

True, but it would take a tremendous amount of effort to prove that it's impossible. Again it's still within the suspension of disbelief since projectiles can curve in the air.

Every shot from a fraternity member was done amped since
1. It was shown and implied many times.
2. It increases the chance of success WITHOUT COST. Its a free advantage.
3. It literally makes absolutely no sense to go and assassinate someone without being amped, insuring success at the highest possible probability. What would be the logical reason to not be amped? It doesn't cost anything. You increase chance of failure tremendously without being amped.

I'm not sure how hitting the barrel with the bullet will effect the bullet or gun since the bullet is not hitting the barrel head on (like in your curved barrel example. It's more like the barrel is parrying the bullet on the side. That's why it's still within the suspension of disbelief. If there is no proof to why something is false then it can be accepted under the suspension of disbelief in order to precede with the debate.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Arrow diameters are usually smaller than bullet diameters. And like I mentioned before, you have to hit the arrow at the exact center otherwise your arrow will deflect to the side.

And yes, hitting the same spot multiple times in a row is harder but I'm just showing that DS's feat is at least partially doable in real life. But you won't find anyone who can even approach the feat of shooting a fly let alone it's wings

I disagree. With enough momentum even an arrow shot slightly off center will penetrate another arrow without being deflected. Also the distance is important too. It's easier to achieve the feat from close than from a distance.

Shooting the wings off a fly is IMPOSSIBLE due to the size of a bullet and a fly. The feat was achieved by the slowing of the perceptions and not the increase of accuracy. In other scenes, Wesley was worst in shooting a still target from a larger distance. DS can't do the fly feat because he has human perceptions. Wesley can't do the DS feat because he doesn't have the consistency of accuracy.

Finally, what DS did is humanly impossible but not impossible.

Originally posted by h1a8
True, but it would take a tremendous amount of effort to prove that it's impossible. Again it's still within the suspension of disbelief since projectiles can curve in the air.

Curve in the air, sure. We've seen football players curve balls with kicks as well. Fly in a complete circle. Not so much.


Originally posted by h1a8

Every shot from a fraternity member was done amped since
1. It was shown and implied many times.
2. It increases the chance of success WITHOUT COST. Its a free advantage.
3. It literally makes absolutely no sense to go and assassinate someone without being amped, insuring success at the highest possible probability. What would be the logical reason to not be amped? It doesn't cost anything. You increase chance of failure tremendously without being amped.

And I can say that given the fluctuations in shot accuracy, not all shots were done while amped. Take that car scene itself. His first two shots are done while driving levelly and, while they are fairly close, there is some space between them. And, based on the trajectory, they actually look like they could have missed. Compare that to the third shot. He is flying through the air in a spinning car, has a very brief moment in which to make the shot, but manages to hit the guy center mass with seemingly casual ease. To me, that implies that he was amped for the third shot, but not the first two.

Because Wesley was rushing jobs sometimes, eager to get to Cross, and was getting frustrated that Sloan kept giving him other hits. And that made him a bit sloppy on a few occasions.

Originally posted by h1a8

I'm not sure how hitting the barrel with the bullet will effect the bullet or gun since the bullet is not hitting the barrel head on (like in your curved barrel example. It's more like the barrel is parrying the bullet on the side. That's why it's still within the suspension of disbelief. If there is no proof to why something is false then it can be accepted under the suspension of disbelief in order to precede with the debate.

The barrels had a gradual curve on those weapons. It was not like the bullet was bouncing off a sharp corner. The fact that the closest RL example of bullets being directed in that way tended to end in failure implies that having a bullet deflecting off the inside of the barrel does more harm than good.

Anyway, we're literally just debating semantics at this point, and have moved somewhat away from the actual topic. So I think we might as well call it quits here. You think Deadshot wins. I think Wesley wins. We both interpret the way in which the adrenaline rush ability works differently. And you don't seem like you are going to budge your stance. And I know I am not going to budge mine. So we can either agree to disagree, or keep debating in circles until we get progressively more annoyed with each other, which doesn't serve any good purpose.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Curve in the air, sure. We've seen football players curve balls with kicks as well. Fly in a complete circle. Not so much.




And I can say that given the fluctuations in shot accuracy, not all shots were done while amped. Take that car scene itself. His first two shots are done while driving levelly and, while they are fairly close, there is some space between them. And, based on the trajectory, they actually look like they could have missed. Compare that to the third shot. He is flying through the air in a spinning car, has a very brief moment in which to make the shot, but manages to hit the guy center mass with seemingly casual ease. To me, that implies that he was amped for the third shot, but not the first two.

Because Wesley was rushing jobs sometimes, eager to get to Cross, and was getting frustrated that Sloan kept giving him other hits. And that made him a bit sloppy on a few occasions.



The barrels had a gradual curve on those weapons. It was not like the bullet was bouncing off a sharp corner. The fact that the closest RL example of bullets being directed in that way tended to end in failure implies that having a bullet deflecting off the inside of the barrel does more harm than good.

Anyway, we're literally just debating semantics at this point, and have moved somewhat away from the actual topic. So I think we might as well call it quits here. You think Deadshot wins. I think Wesley wins. We both interpret the way in which the adrenaline rush ability works differently. And you don't seem like you are going to budge your stance. And I know I am not going to budge mine. So we can either agree to disagree, or keep debating in circles until we get progressively more annoyed with each other, which doesn't serve any good purpose.

But you're right though.

Originally posted by KingD19
But you're right though.

Doesn't really matter at this point. I can tell when someone isn't going to budge on their stance, and I have no interest in going at it for another 10 pages.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Curve in the air, sure. We've seen football players curve balls with kicks as well. Fly in a complete circle. Not so much.




And I can say that given the fluctuations in shot accuracy, not all shots were done while amped. Take that car scene itself. His first two shots are done while driving levelly and, while they are fairly close, there is some space between them. And, based on the trajectory, they actually look like they could have missed. Compare that to the third shot. He is flying through the air in a spinning car, has a very brief moment in which to make the shot, but manages to hit the guy center mass with seemingly casual ease. To me, that implies that he was amped for the third shot, but not the first two.

Because Wesley was rushing jobs sometimes, eager to get to Cross, and was getting frustrated that Sloan kept giving him other hits. And that made him a bit sloppy on a few occasions.



The barrels had a gradual curve on those weapons. It was not like the bullet was bouncing off a sharp corner. The fact that the closest RL example of bullets being directed in that way tended to end in failure implies that having a bullet deflecting off the inside of the barrel does more harm than good.

Anyway, we're literally just debating semantics at this point, and have moved somewhat away from the actual topic. So I think we might as well call it quits here. You think Deadshot wins. I think Wesley wins. We both interpret the way in which the adrenaline rush ability works differently. And you don't seem like you are going to budge your stance. And I know I am not going to budge mine. So we can either agree to disagree, or keep debating in circles until we get progressively more annoyed with each other, which doesn't serve any good purpose.

You are right about the circle thing. I don't see a bullet moving in a complete circle or penetrating all those heads. That part is most likely impossible.


If I'm wrong on some points then I'm certainly not wrong on the point that Wesley was amped. Wesley, at that time, had the ability to amp at will. Remember being amped doesn't give you a consistent accurate aim from a distance. This was shown when he was in target practice. Anyway, you never addressed the point of how it makes no sense not to be amped before shooting someone. It increases the chance of success WITHOUT A NEGATIVE COST. Plus Wesley wanted to impress Sloan. Wesley was in a fast moving car and had to shoot someone ACCURATELY in the head (while driving and watching the road). It makes no sense to not be amped as that would be extremely hard to do under normal circumstances.
It was understood from the writer that is how they always operated. Get another member's opinion (someone who isn't bias and is well respected). And i'll be willing to appeal to them on that matter.

And a curved barrel is totally different from pushing a bullet on its side (as in a parry). Even if it's a gradual curve then bullet is still hitting the barrel HEAD ON.

My point is that if something takes much effort to prove impossible then we can ACCEPT it under the suspension of disbelief and still have a debate. It's hard to prove that a bullet can't curve. So we should just accept it.

Originally posted by h1a8
If I'm wrong on some points then I'm certainly not wrong on the point that Wesley was amped. Wesley, at that time, had the ability to amp at will. Remember being amped doesn't give you a consistent accurate aim from a distance. This was shown when he was in target practice. Anyway, you never addressed the point of how it makes no sense not to be amped before shooting someone. It increases the chance of success WITHOUT A NEGATIVE COST. Plus Wesley wanted to impress Sloan. Wesley was in a fast moving car and had to shoot someone ACCURATELY in the head (while driving and watching the road). It makes no sense to not be amped as that would be extremely hard to do under normal circumstances.
It was understood from the writer that is how they always operated. Get another member's opinion (someone who isn't bias and is well respected). And i'll be willing to appeal to them on that matter.

I am curious. Who is going to judge their impartiality? You could just say that anyone who disagrees with you is biased.

And I did answer. Wesley got sloppy when he was in a rush more than once in that film, because he was obsessed with going after his "father's" killer. That old bullet-maker also got the drop on him, when he was looking for Cross, because he let his eagerness to find Cross get the better of him. He also accidentally shot one of his own allies at one point, again, in his eagerness to go after Cross. And then some of it is also plot-related, to progress the story forward. Why did Cross initially approach Wesley in such a suspect manner, and get sucked into a fight with Fox? Surely a guy who had been staying ahead of the Fraternity could have found a better way to reach him. Why did Sloan choose to go inside the office at the end of the film, risking himself, when he could likely have sniped "Wesley" from another building? And those are not the only contrivances in the film.

You keep throwing out "suspension of disbelief" when we discuss the possibility of curving a bullet, but you want to analyze movie characters by typical RL standards when it comes to actions. You constantly take your interpretation of things, and then claim it's the "writer's" intent, as though you personally had discussions with these people when they wrote these stories. Then, when people disagree with you, you act like they're idiots for not going along with your opinion.

Originally posted by h1a8

And a curved barrel is totally different from pushing a bullet on its side (as in a parry). Even if it's a gradual curve then bullet is still hitting the barrel HEAD ON.

My point is that if something takes much effort to prove impossible then we can ACCEPT it under the suspension of disbelief and still have a debate. It's hard to prove that a bullet can't curve. So we should just accept it.

It doesn't take much effort at all. People have been using guns for centuries. Wanted has been out for 8 years. If it was realistically possible, someone would have done it by now. Hell, for curiosity's sake, I did a google search on whether it would be possible, and there are scores of articles debunking the Wanted bullet curving as unrealistic, ranging from professional shooters to professional physicists. Hell, even Mythbusters have actually tried it.

Edit: Anyway, I am done here. It is 6 pages, and you haven't provided any evidence to make me want to change my stance. And you clearly aren't changing your mind either.

5vZ4lCKv1ik

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I am curious. Who is going to judge their impartiality? You could just say that anyone who disagrees with you is biased.

And I did answer. Wesley got sloppy when he was in a rush more than once in that film, because he was obsessed with going after his "father's" killer. That old bullet-maker also got the drop on him, when he was looking for Cross, because he let his eagerness to find Cross get the better of him. He also accidentally shot one of his own allies at one point, again, in his eagerness to go after Cross. And then some of it is also plot-related, to progress the story forward. Why did Cross initially approach Wesley in such a suspect manner, and get sucked into a fight with Fox? Surely a guy who had been staying ahead of the Fraternity could have found a better way to reach him. Why did Sloan choose to go inside the office at the end of the film, risking himself, when he could likely have sniped "Wesley" from another building? And those are not the only contrivances in the film.

You keep throwing out "suspension of disbelief" when we discuss the possibility of curving a bullet, but you want to analyze movie characters by typical RL standards when it comes to actions. You constantly take your interpretation of things, and then claim it's the "writer's" intent, as though you personally had discussions with these people when they wrote these stories. Then, when people disagree with you, you act like they're idiots for not going along with your opinion.



It doesn't take much effort at all. People have been using guns for centuries. Wanted has been out for 8 years. If it was realistically possible, someone would have done it by now. Hell, for curiosity's sake, I did a google search on whether it would be possible, and there are scores of articles debunking the Wanted bullet curving as unrealistic, ranging from professional shooters to professional physicists. Hell, even Mythbusters have actually tried it.

Edit: Anyway, I am done here. It is 6 pages, and you haven't provided any evidence to make me want to change my stance. And you clearly aren't changing your mind either.

So Wesley would drive fast in a moving car while trying to watch the road and simultaneously shoot a moving target accurately in head WITHOUT BEING AMPED? WHY? Give just one possible logical reason for this.

The other things you said are not valid. The fraternity could have found Wesley right after Cross turned against them. They could have been keeping watch and made it difficult for Cross to reach Wesley. See, as long as there is a possible and reasonable explanation then we go with it.

Let's just put it this way. You could be right or wrong. Wesley could have amped right when the car flipped or he was already amped before the car flipped. Since we don't know for 100% certainty then we can't accept that scene as proof.

And I made a rule about RL dynamics in debating fictional things.
The rule is, if something is very difficult or not possible to prove impossible then we accept it as truth. That means we don't apply RL dynamics to argue against it and just accept it. The shooting the wings off the fly is EASY to prove impossible. Bullets curving is not easy to prove. Myth Busters can't prove it because they can't move their hands faster than a bullet to get it to curve.

But all of this is moot. Why? Because there were other scenes (after the fly feat) where Wesley was very inaccurate with his shooting. So if you are right and Wesley didn't amp sometimes because he was sloppy (forgetting his powers) then he will do so in this fight. That means DS would win anyway, but for different reasons.

Congrats. You just argued against Wesley.

Originally posted by h1a8
So Wesley would drive fast in a moving car while trying to watch the road and simultaneously shoot a moving target accurately in head WITHOUT BEING AMPED? WHY? Give just one possible logical reason for this.

He didn't shoot him in the head. The shots never landed. They hit a bulletproof window. And because it is possible to drive fast and shoot at someone without having super powers. Have you not watched action movies? Jeesh. Seriously, go watch Fury Road or something.

Originally posted by h1a8

The other things you said are not valid. The fraternity could have found Wesley right after Cross turned against them. They could have been keeping watch and made it difficult for Cross to reach Wesley. See, as long as there is a possible and reasonable explanation then we go with it.

You ignore the point I brought up about Sloan. He had no reason to endanger himself to get to Wesley, yet conveniently ended up right on the X he planted. Wesley was also a rookie at the time, and one with a personal vendetta. It's like you've also never heard of rookie mistakes.

Originally posted by h1a8

Let's just put it this way. You could be right or wrong. Wesley could have amped right when the car flipped or he was already amped before the car flipped. Since we don't know for 100% certainty then we can't accept that scene as proof.

But I am supposed to just accept your claim that Wesley was always amped? lol


Originally posted by h1a8

And I made a rule about RL dynamics in debating fictional things.
The rule is, if something is very difficult or not possible to prove impossible then we accept it as truth. That means we don't apply RL dynamics to argue against it and just accept it. The shooting the wings off the fly is EASY to prove impossible. Bullets curving is not easy to prove. Myth Busters can't prove it because they can't move their hands faster than a bullet to get it to curve.

You made a rule? So what. Your rules aren't KMC rules. You aren't a mod. Other people aren't obligated to debate according to your personal rule set.

Originally posted by h1a8

But all of this is moot. Why? Because there were other scenes (after the fly feat) where Wesley was very inaccurate with his shooting. So if you are right and Wesley didn't amp sometimes because he was sloppy (forgetting his powers) then he will do so in this fight. That means DS would win anyway, but for different reasons.

Congrats. You just argued against Wesley.

Not at all. CIS is off unless stated otherwise. And the plot reason for Wesley's mistakes (Cross) is not in this thread. So nice try, but no dice.

Seriously, there is a reason why no one else agrees with your stance in this thread. Just give it a rest.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
He didn't shoot him in the head. The shots never landed. They hit a bulletproof window. And because it is possible to drive fast and shoot at someone without having super powers. Have you not watched action movies? Jeesh. Seriously, go watch Fury Road or something.

Of course it's possible but not likely to be successful. You are basically straw manning me at this point. It's extremely difficult to do is the point. The mission is important. Amping is free. If Wesley chose not to amp in various scenes then he loses in this fight by character.

There is no proof or evidence that Sloan could have targeted Wesley without endangering himself. Remember Wesley was after Sloan, not the other way around. Sloan knows this. There's no evidence that Sloan is a sniper either. Both were in hiding. Yes because it's common sense, at least when he was trying to kill someone. So Wesley amped himself EVERYTIME he was trying to kill someone. My rule is a rule of logic. Plenty of dice actually. It's in Wesleys character to choose not to amp due to arrogance or whatever due to your argument. CIS is never off unless stated. Characters fight in character. This is KMC remember. You are confusing the forums.



You have absolutely no proof that Wesley can amp AND then prevent from being shot after the bell. DS can fire on him in 0.3 of a second. Give me proof that Wesley can amped faster than 0.3 of a second.

Originally posted by h1a8
Of course it's possible but not likely to be successful. You are basically straw manning me at this point. It's extremely difficult to do is the point. The mission is important. Amping is free. If Wesley chose not to amp in various scenes then he loses in this fight by character.

LMAO. So we apply "suspension of disbelief" on curving bullets in RL, but this is too difficult to do in a movie? Even though it has been done in action movies by various people, on several occasions. And you need to learn what "Strawmanning" means.

Originally posted by h1a8

There is no proof or evidence that Sloan could have targeted Wesley without endangering himself. Remember Wesley was after Sloan, not the other way around. Sloan knows this. There's no evidence that Sloan is a sniper either. Both were in hiding.

We see that Sloan can curve a bullet with seemingly even greater ease than most Fraternity members, during Wesley's training. If nothing else, he didn't need to get anywhere near the desk, or that X mark. So good job lying. And LOL, your logic for why Sloan went out in the open, exposing himself to danger, to Wesley's office is he was "not" after him and was "hiding". Yeah, ironclad logic there.

Originally posted by h1a8

Yes because it's common sense, at least when he was trying to kill someone. So Wesley amped himself EVERYTIME he was trying to kill someone. My rule is a rule of logic.

Again, spouting your personal opinion off as fact, while ignoring things like human error/plot etc. while selectively choosing where you want "suspension of disbelief" to be applied.


Originally posted by h1a8

Plenty of dice actually. It's in Wesleys character to choose not to amp due to arrogance or whatever due to your argument. CIS is never off unless stated. Characters fight in character. This is KMC remember. You are confusing the forums.

Actually, in standard KMC Versus forum rules, it is agreed that CIS is off unless the OP specifies otherwise. That's how it has always been told to me. Also, "In character" does not automatically mean "character induced stupidity". Wesley also did his "rampage" in character. The point of the film is to show him changing his life, going from pencil-pusher loser to something else, and making mistakes along the way, until we get the guy at the end of the film, who slaughtered the Fraternity and killed Sloan. The entire plot of the film was about Wesley finding himself and improving. So, even if we apply "in character", unless stated otherwise again (and you can ask a moderator about this) we use the most current version. Which is end-of-film Wesley, who has been through everything and learned from all his errors.


Originally posted by h1a8

You have absolutely no proof that Wesley can amp AND then prevent from being shot after the bell. DS can fire on him in 0.3 of a second. Give me proof that Wesley can amped faster than 0.3 of a second.

Proof has been supplied. You just don't want to accept it. And you have absolutely no proof that Wesley was amped during every shot he made in the film, and that it took him multiple seconds every time to amp. See, I can play your own game.

Again, you have done nothing but spout your opinion, while dismissing any argument that doesn't conform to it.

Fact is that everyone but you thinks Wesley wins. You claim other people have not adequately provided evidence for their side. But you haven't provided anything of substance from our perspective. So this really is the last time I am responding to this.

But I imagine you will just come back and repost your same opinion, even though literally no one else agrees with you.

Nice to see that h1 still hasn't figured out the difference between his opinion and facts.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
LMAO. So we apply "suspension of disbelief" on curving bullets in RL, but this is too difficult to do in a movie? Even though it has been done in action movies by various people, on several occasions. And you need to learn what "Strawmanning" means.



We see that Sloan can curve a bullet with seemingly even greater ease than most Fraternity members, during Wesley's training. If nothing else, he didn't need to get anywhere near the desk, or that X mark. So good job lying. And LOL, your logic for why Sloan went out in the open, exposing himself to danger, to Wesley's office is he was "not" after him and was "hiding". Yeah, ironclad logic there.



Again, spouting your personal opinion off as fact, while ignoring things like human error/plot etc. while selectively choosing where you want "suspension of disbelief" to be applied.




Actually, in standard KMC Versus forum rules, it is agreed that CIS is off unless the OP specifies otherwise. That's how it has always been told to me. Also, "In character" does not automatically mean "character induced stupidity". Wesley also did his "rampage" in character. The point of the film is to show him changing his life, going from pencil-pusher loser to something else, and making mistakes along the way, until we get the guy at the end of the film, who slaughtered the Fraternity and killed Sloan. The entire plot of the film was about Wesley finding himself and improving. So, even if we apply "in character", unless stated otherwise again (and you can ask a moderator about this) we use the most current version. Which is end-of-film Wesley, who has been through everything and learned from all his errors.




Proof has been supplied. You just don't want to accept it. And you have absolutely no proof that Wesley was amped during every shot he made in the film, and that it took him multiple seconds every time to amp. See, I can play your own game.

Again, you have done nothing but spout your opinion, while dismissing any argument that doesn't conform to it.

Fact is that everyone but you thinks Wesley wins. You claim other people have not adequately provided evidence for their side. But you haven't provided anything of substance from our perspective. So this really is the last time I am responding to this.

But I imagine you will just come back and repost your same opinion, even though literally no one else agrees with you.

To prevent the thread from derailing. I'll just discuss only relevant things to the debate.

We don't know if Wesley was amped when he shot at the target in the car. It makes more sense for him to be thankful for him not to be. You have no proof that he wasn't. So that scene can not be used as proof on the speed in which Wesley can amp.

That leaves us with evidence of him amping in seconds from another scene and no evidence of him amping in less than a 0.5 seconds.

Wesley will amp as soon as the round starts, because only a fool would wait for the bell to start without mentally preparing himself for the fight at hand.

And while he won't amp before the match starts as that would be considered prep, there's nothing to stop him from amping right off the bat.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Wesley will amp as soon as the round starts, because only a fool would wait for the bell to start without mentally preparing himself for the fight at hand.

And while he won't amp before the match starts as that would be considered prep, there's nothing to stop him from amping right off the bat. agreed! But it will take him longer than a second to activate the amp. By then he would have been shot.

Sigh. I give up. Obviously you missed the whole point of my post.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sigh. I give up. Obviously you missed the whole point of my post.

You know, that is probably his plan. he's hoping that if he keeps it up long enough, people will give up and he'll "win" the debate by default.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sigh. I give up. Obviously you missed the whole point of my post. I apologize. What was the whole point?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You know, that is probably his plan. he's hoping that if he keeps it up long enough, people will give up and he'll "win" the debate by default. Tbh a victory is for me to be proven wrong. That way I learn something. Those are my best times (when people convince me against my position). I don't really like to be right all the time. Trust me, I'm reasonable. If there is evidence supporting against my stance then I'll accept it.

In the Surfer thread I changed my position and supported Surfer with the marvel supporters against the D.c. Supporters because Goober made a great point and supplied the evidence. I respected it and sided with him immediately.

If you were reasonable, you'd have posted proof by now. Instead you just keep insisting that your opinion should be considered fact.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you were reasonable, you'd have posted proof by now. Instead you just keep insisting that your opinion should be considered fact.

I did post proof. Wesley can't amp fast enough to prevent being shot right after the bell. The proof is the lack of evidence supporting that he can.

I can say that Spider-Man can't transmute matter like Surfer can.
I don't have to prove it as there is no evidence anywhere that supports it.

You posted opinion, not proof. Learn the difference.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You posted opinion, not proof. Learn the difference.

I don't need to post proof of a negative. A negative is always true when there is no evidence anywhere to support it not being true.

It's not an opinion that Spider-Man CAN'T fly into the Sun under his power and back to Earth. It's a fact because there is no evidence to support that he can.

Seems that you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.

Another tactic of your's, since you can't back up your opinion, you're trying to change the subject.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Another tactic of your's, since you can't back up your opinion, you're trying to change the subject.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't need to post proof of a negative. A negative is always true when there is no evidence anywhere to support it not being true.

It's not an opinion that Spider-Man CAN'T fly into the Sun under his power and back to Earth. It's a fact because there is no evidence to support that he can.

Seems that you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.

IOW, you can't back up your claims.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you can't back up your claims.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't need to post proof of a negative. A negative is always true when there is no evidence anywhere to support it not being true.

It's not an opinion that Spider-Man CAN'T fly into the Sun under his power and back to Earth. It's a fact because there is no evidence to support that he can.

Seems that you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.

Like I said, you can't back up your claims.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said, you can't back up your claims.

Funny how he changes his tune now, after his earlier claims about accepting bullet curving in RL as possible, based on the fact that it hadn't adequately been proven false in his opinion. Yet here something is untrue unless proven true.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Funny how he changes his tune now, after his earlier claims about accepting bullet curving in RL as possible, based on the fact that it hadn't adequately been proven false in his opinion. Yet here something is untrue unless proven true. But curving a bullet is theoretically possible. There is evidence to support it. You can't can't curve it in a complete circle though. I agreed with you on that. If there is no evidence to support something then we don't have to prove it false.

But why derail the thread? Just debate on who wins and why
I gave my position with reasons.

Originally posted by h1a8
But curving a bullet is theoretically possible. There is evidence to support it. You can't can't curve it in a complete circle though. I agreed with you on that. If there is no evidence to support something then we don't have to prove it false.

But why derail the thread? Just debate on who wins and why
I gave my position with reasons.

Provide the evidence to support the possibility that you can curve a bullet while shooting it. Not just your own personal opinion on how you think it might be done. Your opinions on things have already been overruled by a mod, in another thread. Without evidence to support them, they mean very little. Because there is plenty of evidence available online to debunk the Wanted bullet curve shots. A bullet can curve ever so slightly after it is fired, but that is due to external forces working on it while it is in the air. It has zero to do with the shooter flicking their arm. And evidence has been provided in the other instance as well. You just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it.

I am not derailing anything. I am proving a point. You are changing how evidence should be analysed depending on how it suits your argument. You can sugarcoat it however you want, but it remains obvious. And I already have done so as well. Multiple times. So have other people. Not our fault you won't accept it.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Funny how he changes his tune now, after his earlier claims about accepting bullet curving in RL as possible, based on the fact that it hadn't adequately been proven false in his opinion. Yet here something is untrue unless proven true.

The best part is, backing up his claim doesn't require him to prove a negative, this is just his latest excuse. he'll say anything to avoid having to provide proof for one of his claims.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The best part is, backing up his claim doesn't require him to prove a negative, this is just his latest excuse. he'll say anything to avoid having to provide proof for one of his claims.

With regards to the bullet curving thing, he is most likely going to come back with his "baseballs can curve when thrown, so bullets can do so when shot like in the movie" argument, even though throwing =/= shooting. Followed by his own personal theory on how it would work. And then he will claim that he provided "proof", even though nothing he has provided counters any of the articles/discussions/clips debunking the Wanted bullet curving.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Provide the evidence to support the possibility that you can curve a bullet while shooting it. Not just your own personal opinion on how you think it might be done. Your opinions on things have already been overruled by a mod, in another thread. Without evidence to support them, they mean very little. Because there is plenty of evidence available online to debunk the Wanted bullet curve shots. A bullet can curve ever so slightly after it is fired, but that is due to external forces working on it while it is in the air. It has zero to do with the shooter flicking their arm. And evidence has been provided in the other instance as well. You just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it.

I am not derailing anything. I am proving a point. You are changing how evidence should be analysed depending on how it suits your argument. You can sugarcoat it however you want, but it remains obvious. And I already have done so as well. Multiple times. So have other people. Not our fault you won't accept it.

Evidence and proof are two different things. A bullet can be spinned as it leaves the gun. But it's not humanly possible since they are not fast or precise enough to do it. It's only theoretically possible.

You are derailing the thread because none of this has anything to do with who wins.

Debate against the points I made why DS wins.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
With regards to the bullet curving thing, he is most likely going to come back with his "baseballs can curve when thrown, so bullets can do so when shot like in the movie" argument, even though throwing =/= shooting. Followed by his own personal theory on how it would work. And then he will claim that he provided "proof", even though nothing he has provided counters any of the articles/discussions/clips debunking the Wanted bullet curving.

The one thing he won't come back with is facts.

DS wins

LOL!!!

Originally posted by h1a8
Evidence and proof are two different things. A bullet can be spinned as it leaves the gun. But it's not humanly possible since they are not fast or precise enough to do it. It's only theoretically possible.

You are derailing the thread because none of this has anything to do with who wins.

Debate against the points I made why DS wins.

I totally called it. More of your opinion. Nothing else.

And it has everything to do with the thread, because it has to do with how the evidence is being approached.

And, as mentioned before, I have already. As have many others.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I totally called it. More of your opinion. Nothing else.

And it has everything to do with the thread, because it has to do with how the evidence is being approached.

And, as mentioned before, I have already. As have many others.

No it doesn't. You never provided any evidence to how fast Wesley can amp. I did. In the car scene, we don't know when Wesley first amped. To give a time is just merely guessing. This is not evidence.
There is a scene where it took Wesley seconds to amp. This is evidence.

Originally posted by h1a8
No it doesn't. You never provided any evidence to how fast Wesley can amp. I did. In the car scene, we don't know when Wesley first amped. To give a time is just merely guessing. This is not evidence.
There is a scene where it took Wesley seconds to amp. This is evidence.

I provided reasoning behind my stance, which you never adequately countered. You just decided that he was always amped unless stated otherwise, without providing anything more than what you thought the writer meant as your backing. So if I did not provide adequate evidence to back my stance, you did not either.

Anyway, like I said, you are the only one who thinks Deadshot wins. As far as I am concerned, this is settled. And the fact that you think that how evidence is handled doesn't have anything to do with a debate speaks volumes.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I provided reasoning behind my stance, which you never adequately countered. You just decided that he was always amped unless stated otherwise, without providing anything more than what you thought the writer meant as your backing. So if I did not provide adequate evidence to back my stance, you did not either.

Anyway, like I said, you are the only one who thinks Deadshot wins. As far as I am concerned, this is settled. And the fact that you think that how evidence is handled doesn't have anything to do with a debate speaks volumes.

But I backtracked and adjusted my position to WE DON'T KNOW when Wesley amped in that scene. He could have amped before he shot for all we know.

I think DS wins because he can shoot Wesley right before he amps. If this fight starts with Wesley being amp then I promise you that no one here will argue harder for Wesley to win than me.

So the only thing we disagree on is how long it takes Wesley to amp.
You believe it takes less than 0.5 of a second and I believe it takes longer than 2 seconds.

That is actually incorrect, you stated it as a fact that it took more than several seconds for him to amp, I can easily provide the quote if I need to.

Originally posted by h1a8
So the only thing we disagree on is how long it takes Wesley to amp.
You believe it takes less than 0.5 of a second and I believe it takes longer than 2 seconds.

Well, that is the thing. The speed at which he can amp is likely the clincher in this match. And if neither of us has managed to convince the other one of anything notable at this point, neither of us is likely to manage to do so, even if we go on for another 7 pages. I don't know about you, but that sounds tedious as f*** to me.