Guns

[Talentless]

I see, my error.

And I won't ask you to support your belief. Only ask you to agree with the idea, not being obligated to the act, of randomly picking someone and kicking their arse. Go ahead.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Your self procalimed facts are nothing more than elaberated statistics,.... your hypothisizing,..

You're a moron. Same old same old. What a disappointment.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
You're a moron. Same old same old. What a disappointment.

This is just uncalled for,.. plain and simple.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Talentless
I see, my error.

And I won't ask you to support your belief. Only ask you to agree with the idea, not being obligated to the act, of randomly picking someone and kicking their arse. Go ahead.

I dont get this,.. could you please explain in MORON language please?

 

[emad]

Originally posted by Talentless
You cannot protect everyone, so the burden falls on the individual. No gun law can promises to free all persons from harm. And you are making a value of life judgement. Implying that a child's death can never be rationalised, even at the expense of others. In other words, if a woman is cornered in a back alley and brutally raped, a gun, which is inarguably capable of being used to stop her attacker, would be wrong for her to possess because if she misses a bystander might get hurt or killed. Yes, frankly, if a thousand kids are killed by accident or intentionally, it is acceptable in the name of self defense. It is the intent that matters.

i don't know much about them, but wouldn't a tazer cover the job of incapacitating the criminal but without risk of severely injuring another person? lets just say that woman does hurt or kill an innocent bystander? won't she have to live with the guilt of having hurt someone after she manages to hit the person trying to rape her? i know for a fact that i hate my self after i injure somebody - even if it's self defense or accidental...

i still stand by melting all civilian firearms mostly because i had stupid friends and their parents were total dumbasses (back when i lived in Houston...)

 

[milefile]

So is ignoring facts that are from the same set you used when it doesn't support your opinion.

 

[SaleenASL]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
no,.. you misinterpreted that,.. please read it again.

you also evaded Talentless's question:

Originally posted by Talentless
You have weak logic when tempered by reality. Has it occured to you that defense includes that from non gun using assailants? Is everyone equal without a gun? Alright, go randomly pick someone and beat them up. You should draw.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by emad
i don't know much about them, but wouldn't a tazer cover the job of incapacitating the criminal but without risk of severely injuring another person?

Sorry emad,.. these guys woulnt feel like real men if they knew they couldnt kill someone with a tazor.

 

[Talentless]

If the odds of surving an attack by an unarmed assailant are as high as you believe, than it is not improbable to presume people are physically equal. Therefor, a 105 lb woman is fine without a gun to stop a rapist because she's equally as strong and capable as her 275 lb rapist.

Your belief is contingent on physical equality.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by SaleenASL
you also evaded Talentless's question:

no,.. I replied with "I dont get this,.. could you please explain in MORON language please?"

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Talentless
If the odds of surving an attack by an unarmed assailant are as high as you believe, than it is not improbable to presume people are physically equal. Therefor, a 105 lb woman is fine without a gun to stop a racist because she's equally as strong and capable as her 275 lb rapist.

Your belief is contingent on physical equality.

no,. i didnt say it would be equal,.. your puttin words in my keyboard,... I said the odds of survial greatly increase.

 

[SaleenASL]

I already posted, before I refreshed the page. I never saw that post of yours.

 

[Talentless]

It doesn't matter if you believe it would be equal, it matters that it has to be in order for your belief to make sense.

 

[DGB454]

Sure you can. Find someone with a weak heart or a pacemaker and try it out.


edit: Wow you guys are fast at inputting answers. This ended up about 4 down from where I was expecting.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Talentless
It doesn't matter if you believe it would be equal, it matters that it has to be in order for your belief to make sense.

I'm on the tazor bandwagon now,... all testosterone junkies can please aim thier responces in that direction if you expect a reply.

 

[milefile]

I wanna buy a gun because they're neat-o. I guess that means there's something wrong with me or my dick. I'm a murderer in the making. Look out, I'm a wildman... *bang!* *bang!* *bang!*

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by emad
i don't know much about them, but wouldn't a tazer cover the job of incapacitating the criminal but without risk of severely injuring another person? lets just say that woman does hurt or kill an innocent bystander? won't she have to live with the guilt of having hurt someone after she manages to hit the person trying to rape her? i know for a fact that i hate my self after i injure somebody - even if it's self defense or accidental...

i still stand by melting all civilian firearms mostly because i had stupid friends and their parents were total dumbasses (back when i lived in Houston...)

My understanding is that tazers have a rather alarming failure rate.

Her guilt is a consequence of life. If she cannot accept the risk, she can choose to not fight back.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
Look out, I'm a wildman... *bang!* *bang!* *bang!*

damn you,.. I was just about to use that line.....

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
I'm on the tazor bandwagon now,... all testosterone junkies can please aim thier responces in that direction if you expect a reply.

I accept your defeat.

Don't you have to be within arms length to use a Tazer?

 

[Ghost C]

I don't think we need to dignify their "What if" arguements by giving them a response. The real world is based on fact, not "But what if the gun stuck to the assailant's chest point blank missed and hit little Jimmy playing with his legos down the street inside his house, THAT'S WHY GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!!!!11111111ONEONE111".

If if's and but's where candy and nuts we'd all have a merry ****ing christmas.

[Edit: Yes, you do, mile. Unless you buy one of those tazers that only the police can purchase. Which isn't possible, unless you're a cop, and then you'd have a gun already.]

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile


Don't you have to be within arms length to use a Tazer?

Dont you have to be within arms length to rape someone?

 

[Talentless]

Can't violent acts be commited on your person from a distance?

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Dont you have to be in arms length to rape someone?

Do you have to be within arm's length to rob someone? To burglarize their house? Not really.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Talentless
Can't violent acts be commited on your person from a distance?

only with a gun..... unless were gonna turn this into a slingshot/crossbow debate.

 

[DGB454]

If you have the right scope

 

[emad]

Originally posted by milefile
I accept your defeat.

Don't you have to be within arms length to use a Tazer?

they have projectile based tazers that shoot off a needle or something that zaps the target...no clue how well they work...i'm looking for that now. i know for sure that some police officers get to carry them around on occasion since they incapacitate like rubber bullets

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Dont you have to be in arms length to rape someone?

The idea is that a potential rape victim is never even touched. If a rapist can take a gun away they can take a tazer away. Personally I think if you are going to rape someone you should be aware that you are running the risk of being killed, not just shocked. The woman carrying the gun obviously already knows this.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
The idea is that a potential rape victim is never even touched. If a rapist can take a gun away they can take a tazer away. Personally I think if you are going to rape someone you should be aware that you are running the risk of being killed, not just shocked. The woman carrying the gun obviously already knows this.

thanx, you made my point for me.

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
only with a gun..... unless were gonna turn this into a slingshot/crossbow debate.

Police consider the "deadly zone" for any type of knife to be 25 feet. You know why? Knives can be thrown. Same goes for hammers, baseball bats, and many other common household objects. Should we outlaw butter knives? I know someone who has a 6" long scar from being stabbed by one, so according to your logic, they're evil deadly weapons that only malicious cold hearted murders with small penises that they're compensating for own them.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
only with a gun..... unless were gonna turn this into a slingshot/crossbow debate.

Confound it, now I know why I can't throw things. Only guns can make an object into a projectile, or any other mechanical tool that has such capacity.

I try, but objects fall not even an inch in front of me.