Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by ajzahn, Aug 15, 2007.
calabria is like palermo's twin sister. everybody is owned by mafia.
in iran everything is owned by the ayatollah.
Here and there anyone with the internet and a supermarket is capable of making a bomb. The largest murders by psychopaths are done with bombs.
They're both extremely dangerous, difference being that I can choose to arm myself here and greatly diminish the threat I might face. Whereas there you are at the mercy of a man who wants your brains on his nine iron.
mafia could never get establishd in iran.
mafia doesn't want to establish in iran. there's nothing to get in iran.
I would rather face a man with a golf club than a man with a gun, no matter what weapon I had in my hand.
Maybe so, but you don't get that choice. If someone decides to bring a gun, sword, bat, or napalm; if you're in that situation it's just you and what you brought.
So maybe you're caught in a room with some guy and a knife, you aren't going to disarm him like Steven Seagal. You're going to get stabbed, repeatedly. As is anyone that gets close to him. I don't understand how people view this as somehow less dangerous, a class isn't going to make an organized effort to disarm the guy. They're going to panic and all run around trying not to be stabbed. If everyone worked together they could overcome; maybe a few people would get stabbed, but the same could be said for someone with a gun. I would much much rather face someone with a gun if I myself was armed than someone with a knife while unarmed. The great part is that it doesn't matter for me, carrying negates pretty much any threat short of an explosion.
Question for the Americans:
If you shoot at the moon with a sniper rifle or an M16 or something, does it really get bigger?
Only if I'm battling people in my rocket car.
You can't #$%#ing beat the Cuban Hermes.
banning weapons is not the solution to reduce criminality.
it's one of the reasons.
So what? There are legal guns in circulation and illegal guns in circulation. Illegal guns never become legal again, and the only way to make a legal gun illegal is to steal it. Unless you have proof that a large amount of the illegal guns in circulation are stolen than your argument is nothing. It's much easier to import firearms than single people out and steal them.
If the dude has a knife, then most things you could lay your hands on become a weapon, like a chair, a table leg, a dustbin... Most things that are solid become both a shield and a weapon, and the guy has to get in close. If the dude has a gun, he can shoot you through a chair from across the room.
Excuse me... WHAT!?
americans....don't even try to go in discussion with them.
It makes perfect sense. Until you can say that a large number of the illegal guns in circulation were stolen ones that had once been legal than the argument is nothing.
And I'm not American.
and banning them may decrease their overall use, but it doesnt guarantee a decrease in murders, whether by guns or not. and then there's the problem that criminals will use them anyway, and now the general public doesn't have them for self defense.
knowing how the system works would help you make a decent point, you know.
even if you account for the bureaucratic errors that allowed a nutjob get guns and shoot up Virginia Tech in April, clinical psychos can't buy guns. besides, it's a pretty weak reason to ban it for the rest of the public. you dont see them banning cars because some people just can't obey the laws, retard.
Yeah, I'm against gun control, but I'm totally for having a waiting period of like 5 days before you can get a gun.
either way, wouldn't have mattered in the case i mentioned. an error in the system (now fixed) allowed the guy to get his hands on guns legally, waiting period or no.
and i'm not sure how much faith i put in the waiting period to abate one's urge to commit a crime of passion. unless someone actually has a statistic to say that, say a 5 day or so waiting period statistically reduces such crimes notably or something.
It's no doubt better than getting the weapon immediately though.
Germany really doesn't have strict gun control laws. In recent years there's been a move away from some of the more wacky laws of the rest of Europe. Germany repealed a law that banned ownership of military style weapins 4 or 5 years ago.
Handguns have one purpose only, to kill other people. We dont want people to kill each other = we dont want any handguns.
Its that simple.
No it isn't. Because people who want to kill people have no problem getting a gun illegally, and now your law has led the person being killed unable to defend themselves.