[DKSuddeth]

the idiots that tell you you're full of ???? like if a perp gets within 5' of you, you've already lost and then question whether you actually do know anything. :cuss: :banghead:

[PlayboyPenguin]

I HATE anti gunners sometimes
Wow, you sure you want to go out on a limb and make such a risque' statement on here. :D

[Bruce333]

the idiots that tell you you're full of ???? like if a perp gets within 5' of you, you've already lost and then question whether you actually do know anything.Huh!?:confused:

[Zen21Tao]

Yeah, the way they offer up their opinion as if it is some type of fact then any argument they form relys solely on appeals to emotions with zero facts or logic. For example, the last antigunner I argued talked about the "epedemic" of kids getting killed with guns. Then when I presented him with statistics showing an actual decline in such incidents. He replied "well, how many senseless deaths do you find exceptable before we get rid of these evil things." When I told him that any "thing" can be used in evil way he just went on about how efficent a gun is at killing people saying that that is why they should be banned. He turned and walked away when I told him that an "inefficent" tool for killing would just kills less people in less time and asked him "how many of those deaths are exceptable" before those "inefficent" tools are banned.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Pipe bombs are pretty effecient too. Do we outlaw PVC pipe and feterlizer?

[Darth Ruger]

Originally Posted by DKSuddeth
the idiots that tell you you're full of ???? like if a perp gets within 5' of you, you've already lost and then question whether you actually do know anything.

Huh!? :confused: Hang on, buddy, I'm working on it. A friend of mine has a friend whose cousin's sister-in-law works at this paperclip factory where they have a janitor who's step-father's uncle's great grandmother knew an old native witch doctor who supposedly spoke the language. I'll get back to you as soon as I find anything out. :D

[cbsbyte]

Sounds like someone already hit the bottle a little early on Pats day. :rolleyes:

[Monkeybear]

"When I told him that any "thing" can be used in evil way he just went on about how efficent a gun is at killing people saying that that is why they should be banned. He turned and walked away when I told him that an "inefficent" tool for killing would just kills less people in less time and asked him "how many of those deaths are exceptable" before those "inefficent" tools are banned."

well played zen.

[Nematocyst]

Hang on, buddy, I'm working on it. A friend of mine has a friend whose cousin's sister-in-law works at this paperclip factory where they have a janitor who's step-father's uncle's great grandmother knew an old native witch doctor who supposedly spoke the language.Someone called for a witch doctor in the house?

I was once involved in the pagan community, and I have a Ph.D. That must make me a witch doctor of sorts.

OK, I've been studying the paragraphs in question.

As best I can translate, it seems to say, "Um. Glub senta perc dit, consev titil vi besanga, dit. Um. Glub wicc josetaconsortia, per rio mangalese di francopep."

Sabe?

(Wow. This must be Friday night, and once again, I've demonstrated that I have no social life.)

On a break from work.

Nem

[DKSuddeth]

if everyone is done making fun of my rant.....

i'm just venting against an anti gun idiot on another board.

[cambeul41]

It is sometimes a temptation to ask: "Already lost? Oh? Do YOU want to try and take me?"

[Bruce333]

taken out of context, your original post made no sense to me.

Ya' got a link to this idiots post, so we can all be dusgusted with him along with ya'?

[Darth Ruger]

if everyone is done making fun of my rant.....

i'm just venting against an anti gun idiot on another board.No offense intended, just approaching things with a sense of humor. Your post made no sense to me either. An explanation of what you were talking about and a little more clear wording would have helped. Didn't mean to upset you.

[DKSuddeth]

ok, i'm not as frustrated now. sorry to jump on anyone.

Heres the post by this idiot, link will be below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
according to the 1994 FBI report '“Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”, police were twice as likely to be killed with their own weapon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
A gun CAN, notice i said CAN, improve the odds in your favor. Not sure how it would make you LESS safe.


Originally Posted by shakran
Do you not read your own posts? If a cop can have his gun taken away from him and get shot with it, a civilian certainly can. That's how it would make you LESS safe.

But then you also mentioned that in the $50 situation you'd pull your gun, which frankly is a pretty stupid move. You pull a gun that close to someone and you're BEGGING them to take it away from you. I'm starting to really wonder if you ever actually have been in a self defense situation. Those of us who have know that posturing with weapons is stupid, and would never try it.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Whether you're assaulted by bat, gun, or knife and you are unarmed, you are at the assaulters mercy.

Originally Posted by shakran
Total bull????. back in my retail days, I've been threatened by a shoplifter with a knife. I disarmed him, then held him till the cops got there. I was not at his mercy, he was at mine. Just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean they know how to use it, or even to keep possession of it. And I'm damn lucky that the shoplifter was an idiot, because a REAL knife fighter would never have pulled it out and waved it menacingly at me, giving me the chance I needed to take the damn thing. A REAL knife fighter would've stabbed me without EVER showing me the knife. Which is why you are proving my point with every post you make. If you're attacked by someone with a weapon, and they actually KNOW how to use it, you are not going to have time to pull your gun, take the safety off, aim, and fire. You'll already be stabbed 5 times. And if he has a gun, he has the drop on you. He's already got his out and aimed before you pull yours. You lose. Period. The gun is NOT going to help you unless he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. And as I've proven, you don't always need a weapon yourself when you're up against someone like that.


Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I refer to a previous post by you where you claim your 'faith' would prevent you from taking a life. I can only assume that you would rather die at the hands of a murderer than to take his life. Tell me I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by shakran
Well I dunno about him, but my faith doesn't stop me from killing anyone, and if someone's trying to kill me, he'd better be successful or he's going to die. Yet I still don't carry a gun. Why? Because in all my years I've NEVER needed one. I don't even shoot them recreationally. And I don't have time to train well enough with them to be effective with them. I'd rather rely on my intelligence (don't go in the bad neighborhoods if I don't have to, avoid potential crime situations in the first place) and martial arts skills for my survival.

And I also call total and utter bull???? on your premise that arming everyone makes everyone safe. You having a gun does not make me safe at ALL. Especially after reading your discussions on how you would use the gun in various situations.

Link:http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2028574&postcount=65

[lucky_fool]

He's talking about the "out of the blue" deadly attack that only really happens in movies and prisons.

Sure, maybe a guy intent on murdering you will stab you before you see the knife, but a guy inent on mugging you is going to threaten you first.

Of course, based on his "back in my retail days" comment I think you may be dealing with an anti-gun mall ninja.

[Biker]

They're already working on the fertilizer.
Biker

[Oldtimer]

The only anti-gun folks that I "hate" are the ones who spew their rhetoric and won't allow anyone to dispute their so-called "facts". They somehow KNOW that an AR-15 or an AK-47 is a "machinegun", and won't allow you to explain the difference between semi-auto and full-auto!

Good example of that was U.S. Senator Diane Finestein, during a "photo op" session on firearms. She was surprisingly correct when she called a civilian-legal AK-47 a semi-automatic rifle, but then she hoisted it above her and exclaimed, "Machineguns such as this need to be banned!"

Former U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno, while testifying as an "expert witness" before a Congressional fact-finding committee, stated that the so-called "assault weapons" were (Quote) "...more deadly than other firearms"! So much for her "expertise"!

[Zen21Tao]

Pardon my longwindedness but here are my thoughts on that baffoons arguments:


Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
according to the 1994 FBI report '“Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”, police were twice as likely to be killed with their own weapon.


Originally Posted by shakran
Do you not read your own posts? If a cop can have his gun taken away from him and get shot with it, a civilian certainly can. That's how it would make you LESS safe.

Notice that the 1994 FBI report doesn’t say “who” the shooter is that kills the police. Could they be taking about accidental shootings where a cop, on or off duty, shoots himself accidentally? Also, just because officer is more likely to be shot with own gun does not mean he or other citizens would be less victimized if he was unarmed. In fact, I would respond that a cop may be more like to be killed by his own gun than another’s gun but he is also more like to kill, wound, or other wise stop a criminal by having a gun to use than to be without a gun and support this statement by providing statistics that show far more officers shooting criminal with officers guns than criminal shooting officers with officers guns.


In order for the guys argument (“less safe”) to hold any merit he would have to include the (1) chances of being killed by another’s weapons while armed, (2) chance of being killed by another weapon while being unarmed (3) chances of being killed by own weapon when other is armed and (4) chances of being killed by own weapon when other is unarmed. If he could show that (1)+(4) is greater than (2)+(3) then he may have a logical argument. But statistics do not support this.

Originally Posted by shakran
Total bull????. back in my retail days, I've been threatened by a shoplifter with a knife. I disarmed him, then held him till the cops got there. I was not at his mercy, he was at mine. Just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean they know how to use it, or even to keep possession of it. And I'm damn lucky that the shoplifter was an idiot, because a REAL knife fighter would never have pulled it out and waved it menacingly at me, giving me the chance I needed to take the damn thing. A REAL knife fighter would've stabbed me without EVER showing me the knife. Which is why you are proving my point with every post you make. If you're attacked by someone with a weapon, and they actually KNOW how to use it, you are not going to have time to pull your gun, take the safety off, aim, and fire. You'll already be stabbed 5 times. And if he has a gun, he has the drop on you. He's already got his out and aimed before you pull yours. You lose. Period. The gun is NOT going to help you unless he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. And as I've proven, you don't always need a weapon yourself when you're up against someone like that.


Is this guy serious. As someone else noted, a mugger/robber/rapist etc. is intent on getting sometime from you by using their weapon as intimidation. This means a threat of violence before an actual act of violence. This guy defeated his own argument in a sense by showing that when a threat of violence (shoplifter with a knife) was made a person could act (be it with his own martial arts skills or a gun). He is right that just because someone has a weapon doesn’t mean they know how to use it. I wonder how he would fair with someone that actually knew how to use that knife. Also, strong point is that just because someone has a weapon doesn’t mean they have the will to use it. In such a case my will to shoot and attack may be all I need to defend myself against someone who has a weapon for mere show.


I'd rather rely on my intelligence (don't go in the bad neighborhoods if I don't have to, avoid potential crime situations in the first place) and martial arts skills for my survival.

If all this guy has to rely on is his intelligence then he is in serious trouble. Let me say that I have taken about 15 years of martial arts and it can be vary valuable but if someone has pulled a gun on me and I have managed to push the gun away from me my next move is drawing my own gun and putting some lead in him not wrestling with him for his gun. Also, there are occasions when someone is too far are away from you for you to reliably use any martial arts move.

And I also call total and utter bull???? on your premise that arming everyone makes everyone safe. You having a gun does not make me safe at ALL. Especially after reading your discussions on how you would use the gun in various situations.

Funny, the number one fear that criminals have (as they report when interviewed in prison studies) is that their victim will be armed. Also look at British crime statistics. When guns were banned their burglary rate decreased and their robbery and home invasion rates increased. No longer did criminals have to wait for victims to leave home to break in they were confident they would be unarmed so they could just rob them face to face.

[nvshooter]

I hate the anti-gunners all the time because they never have to tell the truth in their propoganda. When confronted with it, they sink to ad hominem insults. And the alien media nation supports them. In today's media, the truth is the first casualty.

[SFvet]

Should I even comment?