So do all you people who carry firearms wear bullet proof vests too?
Cause I'm thinking they'd be a shit load more useful then a gun if you're ever attacked.
Cause I'm thinking they'd be a shit load more useful then a gun if you're ever attacked.
If I may: I suggest a Remington 870 tactical express. 7 shot pump action 18 inch barrel. Perfect for getting around doorwaysJohnG@lt wrote:
I dont own any guns. I do want a shotgun when I buy a house though.lowing wrote:
Next gun purchase, Springfield Micro CMP .45 ACP can't wait to blow someones brains out with that beautyJohnG@lt wrote:
Not you, sheep.
carrying a gun is more practical than wearing body armor. Really, please get real with your arguments.DrunkFace wrote:
So do all you people who carry firearms wear bullet proof vests too?
Cause I'm thinking they'd be a shit load more useful then a gun if you're ever attacked.
what if he's carrying a nerf gun? where does this line get drawn? seems arbitrary to me.
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
I don't think you're even listening to what he's saying.lowing wrote:
I do not buy into that equal force shit. I will not throw my gun away and pick up a knife because my attacker only has a knife. If he is in my home uninvited, I will shoot to kill. His presence is an assumed deadly threat, automatically. As I said earlier, I will bring a gun to your knife fight.Turquoise wrote:
Um... defending yourself doesn't require killing someone. Look, I don't agree with sheep's stance, but you're going off the deep end here.JohnG@lt wrote:
Without reason? Are you fucking dense? I said if someone were attacking you. If you aren't willing to defend your own life then you don't deserve to live.
Look, a gun isn't even necessarily lethal. That's what keeps getting missed in this discussion. If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
Now, in the crazy legal system we have, you're actually better off killing an intruder here, but if our laws actually made any sense, then you could simply shoot to injure an intruder without fear of getting sued.
Going from there, if someone tries to attack you, you don't have to go for a lethal counterattack, whether it's with a gun or something else.
So, sheep's logic works even with a gun, although he seems to ignore that. The premise behind not trying to kill an aggressor is a sound one if you are skilled enough with your weapon and if other factors don't necessitate a fast kill.
No, go for a Mossberg 500A with a Knoxx Spec Ops folder.lowing wrote:
If I may: I suggest a Remington 870 tactical express. 7 shot pump action 18 inch barrel. Perfect for getting around doorwaysJohnG@lt wrote:
I dont own any guns. I do want a shotgun when I buy a house though.lowing wrote:
Next gun purchase, Springfield Micro CMP .45 ACP can't wait to blow someones brains out with that beauty
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
I'd say zero.Lotta_Drool wrote:
So, what are the odds that some liberal nut job will retaliate to the Judge and Congressman being shot by going on their own rampage?
Its nice to see Glenn Beck on the back foot, and why do right-wingers always try to close down the debate when they're losing.It obviously really agitated the liberals and they took it as an attack from the Republicans/Tea Party. I don't think I would hang out at the next big Tea Party rally in Arizona.
Fuck Israel
..If someone is dumb enough to break into my home armed with a "nerf gun" I will be sure to tell his mother how stupid her late son actually was.presidentsheep wrote:
what if he's carrying a nerf gun? where does this line get drawn? seems arbitrary to me.
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens
I don't see that anyone needs more than a five shot .32 or .38 for defense, no-one needs a Glock and multiple 20rnd mags.presidentsheep wrote:
what if he's carrying a nerf gun? where does this line get drawn? seems arbitrary to me.
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens
Fuck Israel
I appreciate the potential for a gun to be non lethal, however the judgement to not kill someone with a gun isn't the same as with say a knife.Turquoise wrote:
I don't think you're even listening to what he's saying.lowing wrote:
I do not buy into that equal force shit. I will not throw my gun away and pick up a knife because my attacker only has a knife. If he is in my home uninvited, I will shoot to kill. His presence is an assumed deadly threat, automatically. As I said earlier, I will bring a gun to your knife fight.Turquoise wrote:
Um... defending yourself doesn't require killing someone. Look, I don't agree with sheep's stance, but you're going off the deep end here.
Look, a gun isn't even necessarily lethal. That's what keeps getting missed in this discussion. If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
Now, in the crazy legal system we have, you're actually better off killing an intruder here, but if our laws actually made any sense, then you could simply shoot to injure an intruder without fear of getting sued.
Going from there, if someone tries to attack you, you don't have to go for a lethal counterattack, whether it's with a gun or something else.
So, sheep's logic works even with a gun, although he seems to ignore that. The premise behind not trying to kill an aggressor is a sound one if you are skilled enough with your weapon and if other factors don't necessitate a fast kill.
A knife is a tool, you can have one laying about the house, however a gun is designed to kill, it has no other real function it's a weapon.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
^This,Turquoise wrote:
Um... defending yourself doesn't require killing someone. Look, I don't agree with sheep's stance, but you're going off the deep end here.JohnG@lt wrote:
Without reason? Are you fucking dense? I said if someone were attacking you. If you aren't willing to defend your own life then you don't deserve to live.presidentsheep wrote:
I don't deserve to live because I wouldn't kill another human being without reason?
I've been attacked plenty of times, and never felt the need to kill the attacker, I have defended myself without having to kill the attacker and not walked away worse for wear with it.
Yes, I would like to say that if it were necessary to kill the person attacking to save another, that I would kill them, and I am confident that I would take the steps to do so. But given that I have never been in that situation, I don't know for sure. I am also positive that anyone on the forum claiming that gung ho shit, wouldn't know for sure either, not until they are in the moment.
Also, as stated before, you may trust your own judgment to know who is right and wrong in a situation, but what about other gun carriers who have hear the violence and come running. Do you trust them to know your the one being attacked in every situation. If I came around a corner and 2 or more people had guns on each other, unless there was a large identifier, how would I know who is the "bad" guy, and who is not?
870 is what I want but not shortened. I want to be able to trap shoot and duck hunt.lowing wrote:
If I may: I suggest a Remington 870 tactical express. 7 shot pump action 18 inch barrel. Perfect for getting around doorwaysJohnG@lt wrote:
I dont own any guns. I do want a shotgun when I buy a house though.lowing wrote:
Next gun purchase, Springfield Micro CMP .45 ACP can't wait to blow someones brains out with that beauty
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
a wounded animal is more dangerous than a none wounded animal. Sorry Turquoise. If I feel I need to draw down on a person it is a threat enough to use deadly force. I don't want to just piss him off by shooting him in the leg. Live criminals that get shot tend to want to shoot back. I see no reason to afford them that opportunity.Turquoise wrote:
I don't think you're even listening to what he's saying.lowing wrote:
I do not buy into that equal force shit. I will not throw my gun away and pick up a knife because my attacker only has a knife. If he is in my home uninvited, I will shoot to kill. His presence is an assumed deadly threat, automatically. As I said earlier, I will bring a gun to your knife fight.Turquoise wrote:
Um... defending yourself doesn't require killing someone. Look, I don't agree with sheep's stance, but you're going off the deep end here.
Look, a gun isn't even necessarily lethal. That's what keeps getting missed in this discussion. If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
Now, in the crazy legal system we have, you're actually better off killing an intruder here, but if our laws actually made any sense, then you could simply shoot to injure an intruder without fear of getting sued.
Going from there, if someone tries to attack you, you don't have to go for a lethal counterattack, whether it's with a gun or something else.
So, sheep's logic works even with a gun, although he seems to ignore that. The premise behind not trying to kill an aggressor is a sound one if you are skilled enough with your weapon and if other factors don't necessitate a fast kill.
The one who shoots first is the "good" guy...Nic wrote:
^This,Turquoise wrote:
Um... defending yourself doesn't require killing someone. Look, I don't agree with sheep's stance, but you're going off the deep end here.JohnG@lt wrote:
Without reason? Are you fucking dense? I said if someone were attacking you. If you aren't willing to defend your own life then you don't deserve to live.
I've been attacked plenty of times, and never felt the need to kill the attacker, I have defended myself without having to kill the attacker and not walked away worse for wear with it.
Yes, I would like to say that if it were necessary to kill the person attacking to save another, that I would kill them, and I am confident that I would take the steps to do so. But given that I have never been in that situation, I don't know for sure. I am also positive that anyone on the forum claiming that gung ho shit, wouldn't know for sure either, not until they are in the moment.
Also, as stated before, you may trust your own judgment to know who is right and wrong in a situation, but what about other gun carriers who have hear the violence and come running. Do you trust them to know your the one being attacked in every situation. If I came around a corner and 2 or more people had guns on each other, unless there was a large identifier, how would I know who is the "bad" guy, and who is not?
so if someone tries to mug you with a teaspoon your first reaction is to shoot them in the head?lowing wrote:
a wounded animal is more dangerous than a none wounded animal. Sorry Turquoise. If I feel I need to draw down on a person it is a threat enough to use deadly force. I don't want to just piss him off by shooting him in the leg. Live criminals that get shot tend to want to shoot back. I see no reason to afford them that opportunity.Turquoise wrote:
I don't think you're even listening to what he's saying.lowing wrote:
I do not buy into that equal force shit. I will not throw my gun away and pick up a knife because my attacker only has a knife. If he is in my home uninvited, I will shoot to kill. His presence is an assumed deadly threat, automatically. As I said earlier, I will bring a gun to your knife fight.
Look, a gun isn't even necessarily lethal. That's what keeps getting missed in this discussion. If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
Now, in the crazy legal system we have, you're actually better off killing an intruder here, but if our laws actually made any sense, then you could simply shoot to injure an intruder without fear of getting sued.
Going from there, if someone tries to attack you, you don't have to go for a lethal counterattack, whether it's with a gun or something else.
So, sheep's logic works even with a gun, although he seems to ignore that. The premise behind not trying to kill an aggressor is a sound one if you are skilled enough with your weapon and if other factors don't necessitate a fast kill.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Mossberg has an aluminum trigger housing. Remington has steel. ALthough I bow to the fact that I have never heard of a Mossberg failing for that reason.ROGUEDD wrote:
No, go for a Mossberg 500A with a Knoxx Spec Ops folder.lowing wrote:
If I may: I suggest a Remington 870 tactical express. 7 shot pump action 18 inch barrel. Perfect for getting around doorwaysJohnG@lt wrote:
I dont own any guns. I do want a shotgun when I buy a house though.
Thats part of the problem, to defend yourself you have to shoot first.DrunkFace wrote:
The one who shoots first is the "good" guy...
Fuck Israel
Oh you can do that with them as well. Did some trap shooting with mine and did pretty well.JohnG@lt wrote:
870 is what I want but not shortened. I want to be able to trap shoot and duck hunt.lowing wrote:
If I may: I suggest a Remington 870 tactical express. 7 shot pump action 18 inch barrel. Perfect for getting around doorwaysJohnG@lt wrote:
I dont own any guns. I do want a shotgun when I buy a house though.
The other point people seem to keep on missing is, what about others skill with a gun. They keep referencing how great of marksmen they are, or that they would know exactly what to do.Turquoise wrote:
If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
Does everyone seem to think that every other gun carrier is going to be able to do the same?
I have seen people in the thread claiming to be a better trained shot that the cops?
Does this mean every non-police, gun carrier is a better shot than every cop? That would be pretty fucked up.
You are such a gigantic moron its not even funny.presidentsheep wrote:
I appreciate the potential for a gun to be non lethal, however the judgement to not kill someone with a gun isn't the same as with say a knife.Turquoise wrote:
I don't think you're even listening to what he's saying.lowing wrote:
I do not buy into that equal force shit. I will not throw my gun away and pick up a knife because my attacker only has a knife. If he is in my home uninvited, I will shoot to kill. His presence is an assumed deadly threat, automatically. As I said earlier, I will bring a gun to your knife fight.
Look, a gun isn't even necessarily lethal. That's what keeps getting missed in this discussion. If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
Now, in the crazy legal system we have, you're actually better off killing an intruder here, but if our laws actually made any sense, then you could simply shoot to injure an intruder without fear of getting sued.
Going from there, if someone tries to attack you, you don't have to go for a lethal counterattack, whether it's with a gun or something else.
So, sheep's logic works even with a gun, although he seems to ignore that. The premise behind not trying to kill an aggressor is a sound one if you are skilled enough with your weapon and if other factors don't necessitate a fast kill.
A knife is a tool, you can have one laying about the house, however a gun is designed to kill, it has no other real function it's a weapon.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And to do that, your attacker had no intention of shooting in the first place.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats part of the problem, to defend yourself you have to shoot first.DrunkFace wrote:
The one who shoots first is the "good" guy...
I wanna kill the intruder, not piss him off.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see that anyone needs more than a five shot .32 or .38 for defense, no-one needs a Glock and multiple 20rnd mags.presidentsheep wrote:
what if he's carrying a nerf gun? where does this line get drawn? seems arbitrary to me.
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens
While it is certainly easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife and guns are solely designed to kill or injure, I don't think that's much of an argument against allowing the average citizen one, as long as he/she is mentally stable and has no history of felonies.presidentsheep wrote:
I appreciate the potential for a gun to be non lethal, however the judgement to not kill someone with a gun isn't the same as with say a knife.
A knife is a tool, you can have one laying about the house, however a gun is designed to kill, it has no other real function it's a weapon.
How so? I appreciate i'm going a bit ott to make a point but it's still valid.JohnG@lt wrote:
You are such a gigantic moron its not even funny.presidentsheep wrote:
I appreciate the potential for a gun to be non lethal, however the judgement to not kill someone with a gun isn't the same as with say a knife.Turquoise wrote:
I don't think you're even listening to what he's saying.
Look, a gun isn't even necessarily lethal. That's what keeps getting missed in this discussion. If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
Now, in the crazy legal system we have, you're actually better off killing an intruder here, but if our laws actually made any sense, then you could simply shoot to injure an intruder without fear of getting sued.
Going from there, if someone tries to attack you, you don't have to go for a lethal counterattack, whether it's with a gun or something else.
So, sheep's logic works even with a gun, although he seems to ignore that. The premise behind not trying to kill an aggressor is a sound one if you are skilled enough with your weapon and if other factors don't necessitate a fast kill.
A knife is a tool, you can have one laying about the house, however a gun is designed to kill, it has no other real function it's a weapon.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Katrina. Your lack of imagination is my reality.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see that anyone needs more than a five shot .32 or .38 for defense, no-one needs a Glock and multiple 20rnd mags.presidentsheep wrote:
what if he's carrying a nerf gun? where does this line get drawn? seems arbitrary to me.
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.