Quake3World

Think what you want, I've never seen you put forth a coherent argument for or against anything, so, talk about brainless.

there are no bad guns only bad people

Incorrect, the M16A1 was a complete piece of shit.

plained wrote:i remember when comedy and trollin/flameing were the status quo here

That's what geoff is for

Except the comedy part...

Ryoki wrote:

tnf wrote: So if are attacked on the street, in an alley, whatever, by a guy with a weapon and retreat puts you at more risk than shooting the guy...that is idiocy?

Nice, i see you use the same type of reasoning that republican politicians so often use: make up a highly improbable (but not quite impossible) scenario and use it as a means to justify something totally outlandish. :icon14:

Yea, highly improbable that someone is the victim of a violent crime where the use of a firearm might get them out of it without harm. Hey numbnuts, this law is based on that highly improbable situation.

That's why I kept emphasizing the fact that we are talking about THAT HIGHLY IMPROBABLE SITUATION. And in that HIGHLY IMPROBABLE SITUATION THAT THIS LAW IS REALLY DEALING WITH the potential victims should not have to prove an attempt to retreat before protecting themselves.

The pacifistic anti-gun side is settled just as much in fantasy land about the whole thing. I notice that not one of you bring up the fact that if some dumbfuck criminal didn't decide to attack someone this wouldn't be an issue...because as long as we can jump on some bandwagon about the streets of the U.S. being the 'wild wild west' we all feel good about ourselves right?

And who said the solution was to arm everyone? All I am saying is that if someone chooses to arm themself, and they find themself facing a situation where they can either: 1) shoot the attacker and avoid an unpredictable amount of personal injury, or 2) try and escape, and in doing so potentially find themself in an even worse situation....that they should have the right to opt for #1.

Of course that situation is going to be relatively improbable - there is almost always a chance to get away or run...but if that chance doesn't exist, a person should not fear prosecution for protecting himself.

That's how I read this law - a law protecting folks who happen to be in that relatively unique situation.

Let's hear the alternative. Explain to me why the victim doesn't have the right to protect himself in a situation like this.

What should you do?

careful, you're going to scare someone.

Nightshade wrote:Incorrect, the M16A1 was a complete piece of shit.

I won't argue that with you, but I was referring to the guns willingness to commit a crime

Yes Forrest, I know that. :icon25:

tnf wrote:Yea, highly improbable that someone is the victim of a violent crime where the use of a firearm might get them out of it without harm. Hey numbnuts, this law is based on that highly improbable situation.

That's why I kept emphasizing the fact that we are talking about THAT HIGHLY IMPROBABLE SITUATION. And in that HIGHLY IMPROBABLE SITUATION THAT THIS LAW IS REALLY DEALING WITH the potential victims should not have to prove an attempt to retreat before protecting themselves.

The pacifistic anti-gun side is settled just as much in fantasy land about the whole thing. I notice that not one of you bring up the fact that if some dumbfuck criminal didn't decide to attack someone this wouldn't be an issue...because as long as we can jump on some bandwagon about the streets of the U.S. being the 'wild wild west' we all feel good about ourselves right?

Yea, at times the anti-gun crowd seems to be as ideological in their arguments as anti-choicers are on abortions. Exaggeration and hyperbole can make it sound really insane to support everyone's right to bear arms.

jester! wrote:"*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:

one question, where the hell would you go that's better? Canada?
actually, the preliminary step into this, the so-called 'right to carry' has been shown to control increase in violent crime rates since being put in place in '87 in fla, for example.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf
I'm more concerned with the number of accidental shootings, with kids and such than some big prick shooting a bigger prick on the street over bruised egos.

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

wtf is wrong with you people!!?

Welcome to Wednesday, 6 April, 2005

tnf wrote:The pacifistic anti-gun side is settled just as much in fantasy land about the whole thing. I notice that not one of you bring up the fact that if some dumbfuck criminal didn't decide to attack someone this wouldn't be an issue...because as long as we can jump on some bandwagon about the streets of the U.S. being the 'wild wild west' we all feel good about ourselves right?

Zing

shaft wrote:

if u won't fuck that...then ur gay...no matter what u say...

reefsurfer wrote:Just by reading nightshades argument makes me scared shitless.. talk about brainwashed.

YOU LIVE IN SWEDEN

yanks shoot other yanks all the time because they're yanks. the canadians and swiss have even more guns per head of population but you don't see them shooting the place up every five minutes. it's culture that makes the difference

i don't really care if gun ownership is supported by rightwing freaks from the GOP and NRA. the issue is separate from those crazies. i just don't buy this statist crap about the state having a god-given right to a monopoly on force, especially not when they abuse that assumed right on a regular basis and to the cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives, many times more than are shot by individuals

seremtan wrote:

reefsurfer wrote:Just by reading nightshades argument makes me scared shitless.. talk about brainwashed.

YOU LIVE IN SWEDEN

edit: nah, I changed my mind...that was mean.

shaft wrote:

Nice tits, decent body for an older woman, but that face looks like a man, baby.

so ur saying ur gay then?

she looks like a man, that's why geoff likes her

Freakaloin wrote:so ur saying ur gay then?

so ur saying you like chicks that have facial features akin to men?

another crushing by loiner

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:so ur saying ur gay then?

so ur saying you like chicks that have facial features akin to men?

like noses and skin?

I'm sorry, but with the opportunity I am all over that like a Duck On A June Bug manly looks or not I would be shittin in high cotton and I would be happier than Dick's hatband to get it