[haloboy100]

the sniper rifle one is one a found on a thread earlier today

[Hades]

Hmm does the Green one work?                       :tmgho:

[Mars]

No kidding.If some one robbed my house and i had a gun and/or knife i would kill him slowly.(aww theres no sigh to suit my craziness).This will do- . I really mean it.

I don't know what it's like to kill someone, I do know what it's like to threaten to kill someone, and I know what it's like to be threatened.

It's not a ****ing game, not something to be toyed around with; if the people on BET did what they said they did, they're phycopathic sociopaths. Death is not a joke; and while there can be good jokes about death, there is no valid humor involving killing someone. Don't **** with what you don't know anything about; don't pretend you do if you don't. One thing I do know: killing someone should NEVER be fun.

All the people I know save a couple who contemplate the killing of others are nothing but dangerous posers... and in the end those are the people who commit things like Virginia Tech.

[Flipside]

yet another necrothread brought to us by VC!

3-4 Months I can cope with, as long as it doesn't happen on too frequent a basis, it's when we start talking years, and for no apparent reason, that I get annoyed

[m]

You know, there was a survey done by acouple of criminologists...
57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Check this article out.

-m

[Ashrak]

this might sound genocidal n stuff but, im all for americans whiping eachother out with guns n stuff, havent yet seen a country as advanced be in such anarchy, canada rocks, what 12 gun murdersl ast year compared to 120k in america? (random numbers)

[flame]

Most people that own guns legally are in good moral standing but the few insane fools give the rest  of us a bad rap!!!

[jr2]

Exactly...

[Agent_Koopa]

You know, there was a survey done by acouple of criminologists...
57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Check this article out.

-m

On the other hand, that's 43% that disagreed.

[flame]

And your point is ?????

On the other hand, that's 43% that disagreed.
[/quote]

[TrashMan]

Shouldnt' you postcount be 2 now? Or does this start from 0?

oh..allmsot forgot - BAN GUNZ!

[Agent_Koopa]

And your point is ?????

On the other hand, that's 43% that disagreed.

My point is that a substantial portion, though not a majority, disagreed.

[jr2]

Hmm.  Care to know the percentage of folks opposed to slavery at the onset of the Civil War?

[karajorma]

You miss the point JR2. What if the 43% who disagree consider people with guns more of a challenge. Part of a gang initiation?

There's nothing hard about shooting someone without a gun while robbing them but some criminals might consider it manly to kill a guy who drew a gun on them.

Of course criminals might be more scared of people carrying guns. That doesn't mean that they would give up a life of crime and go do something else instead. It simply means that they'd be more violent in committing crimes.

[jr2]

Since when did criminals give up their lives of crime?  What is the recidivism (spelling?) rate for armed robbers?  Armed robbers that do drugs?  Either or who have murdered in the past?

[Grizzly]

Shouldnt' you postcount be 2 now? Or does this start from 0?

Post counts don't apply here (you should know that!)

Shooting someone with a gun might be considered self-defence?

[TrashMan]

If he is attacking or if you are attacking?

If everyne has the right to kill in self defence, hten everything is self defence really..I want to kill ou, you try to kill mein self defense and now I have to kill you in my own self-defense. Does one forgo his right at self-defense if he is an attacker? I'd think so.
But how does one determine who is the attacker and who is the defender?

[karajorma]

Since when did criminals give up their lives of crime?

That's kinda my point.

People who quote the fact that criminals are scared of people with guns act as though that simply means that if more people had them then criminals would give up. That's nonsense of course. Before guns when everyone had knives and daggers criminals simply trusted their skill and luck to see them through.

Giving everyone a gun doesn't mean less crime. It just means more shootings during crime. Sure that would take out a few extra criminals but not enough to really make a difference.

[Maxwell]

Armed citizens are less likely to fall victim to certain forms of crime like muggings or mass shootings.
Yes guns bring their own problems, but some people accept those as the lesser of two evils.

Mankind will face crime problems for the rest of his natural existence until either the Rapture or the government simply drugs everyone "happy".  Now you can personally choose whether to be armed or not, but I don't think criminals will go easy on anyone for being good victims.
No matter what you do the criminals will adapt, even if you do nothing.


Some folks might believe in pacifism for confronting violence, but its not their right to enforce that belief on others.

[m]

Okay... point being:  57% of criminals would rather face trained, armed policemen who would try to arrest them and have them sent to jail (and only shoot/kill them if they resisted) than face anyone else with a gun.  This is probably due to the fact that an armed victim is judge, jury, and executioner on the spot.

BTW: They banned guns in Australia... and then banned swords because that's what people picked up next.

Just so you know: I would not mind if only police officers and soldiers had guns... the problem is: How would you enforce it?  Think about it:  If you are a criminal (robber, rapist, murderer) and the government tells everyone to turn in their guns... would you do it?  Of course not, because the government just guaranteed that your victims will definitely not be able to shoot you, but so long as you don't turn in your gun, you can make them do whatever you want.

Also: If everyone (excluding police officers and soldiers) had no guns, who would have the advantage?  The younger, the stronger, and the better trained.  That's why gun has been called "The Great Equalizer."  Because now the elderly, the weak, and those who don't stand a chance in hand-to-hand combat (women for example, assuming they have no self-defense training) can defend themselves against attackers.

-m