This fucking scares me...

Post by **reefsurfer** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:00 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm

wtf is wrong with you people!!?

Post by **jester!** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:03 pm

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:05 pm

Yeehaw!!

Post by **Duhard** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:05 pm

If I were a girl, I'd ask reefsurfer for a date.

Post by **losCHUNK** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:11 pm

o shit.....

Post by **losCHUNK** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:12 pm

its only because yanks are to lazy to run after em

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

sigh. chalk up another reason to leave the country.

Post by **S@M** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:21 pm

im going to America in Feb - only for 5 days though luckily.... might buy a kevlar vest...

Post by **Transient** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:59 pm

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:sigh. chalk up another reason to leave the country.

Don't point a gun at anyone and I don't think you'll have a problem. Extreme cases notwithstanding.

This bill is retarded, but it's not guns that are the problem. There are more guns per home in Canada than in the States, yet how many murders are there with a firearm each year? Something like 10, versus 10,000 in the States.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:59 pm

reefsurfer wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm

wtf is wrong with you people!!?

what a pussy...

Post by **tnf** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:45 pm

depends on the circumstances...if the opportunity to retreat presents itself as a viable option that puts the victim in a safer position than if they just shot the attacker, they should retreat. But they should not have to put themselves into additional risk.

Will there be cases where someone is shot when the potential victim could have retreated? Probably. But that could be solved by the fucking criminal NOT ATTACKING THEM IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

Post by **tnf** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:45 pm

Freakaloin wrote:
reefsurfer wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm

wtf is wrong with you people!!?
what a pussy...

Another thing we agree on.

Post by **S@M** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:56 am

tnf wrote:depends on the circumstances...if the opportunity to retreat presents itself as a viable option that puts the victim in a safer position than if they just shot the attacker, they should retreat. But they should not have to put themselves into additional risk.

Will there be cases where someone is shot when the potential victim could have retreated? Probably. But that could be solved by the fucking criminal NOT ATTACKING THEM IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

assuming of course that weirdo's will only shoot someone once they have proven criminal intent.... etc etc etc. Sounds like loop hole haven.

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:02 am

reefsurfer wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm

wtf is wrong with you people!!?

why does this scare you? you live in sweden

frankly i think europeans are too faggy about firearms. while there's little evidence for the oft-made claim that gun ownership reduces crime, i think letting people own guns is simply a matter of trust. i mean, if the govt can't trust the people to own firearms, why should we trust the govt to have nukes and carrier fleets and tomahawks ffs.

Post by **tnf** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:02 am

there are loop holes, i don't disagree with that...but again, I am a big believer in victim's rights, which is something often counter the prevalent attitude in today's society that people need all sorts of legal justification to protect themselves. I am not advocating all-out vigilante justice here (and that isn't going to happen with this law).

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:06 am

i can understand this type of thing for the home, but for anything else - car, work, street.... this is idiocy.

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:07 am

well, if it doesn't reduce assaults etc in florida the utilitarian argument goes out the window really...

Post by **Canis** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:44 am

Code: Select all

if (Florida)
{
   murders++;
}

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:46 am

don't forget to normalize for population density Canis

Post by **Canis** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:46 am

Sorry, but population density is irrelevant here. You should have enough brains to figure that out.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:50 am

no shit

Post by **Canis** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:00 am

This is a matter of a law describing what one can do in a given situation, not a comparison of the effects on murder rates that a given punishment yields (which covers too many variables -- including population density -- for a proper conclusion). This current comparison comes down to the probability of occurrence and the abuse/misinterpretation of the law to justify one's actions (higher occurrence of folks using this to kill someone because they were "acting in self defense).

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:46 am

It also decreased with higher population density, which may at first sight seem strange, but it should be borne in mind that rural areas, with low population density, often have higher murder rates than the peaceful suburbs.

http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.cf ... il&id=1527

just keep sticking to your false assumptions and denial

Post by **andyman** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:57 am

Florida rules. It's December 18th and I am not cold when i go outside.

Post by **jester!** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:26 am

"*kzzzkzz*eerrrrr hes coming right at us!"

Blam!

Cant wait to hear about all the new murders. It seems every day there is another reason to be happy not to be in the US. :icon26:

This fucking scares me...

This fucking scares me...

Re: This fucking scares me...

Re: This fucking scares me...

Re: This fucking scares me...