[QUOTE=Zeke129;29537133]How can you justify hurting a fleeing person at all[/QUOTE]
If they're guilty of a crime, then it might be necessary to harm them to stop them from fleeing or avoiding justice. You shouldn't kill anyone who is no longer a threat and is fleeing, but harm can be justified.
[QUOTE=yuki;29537213]If they're guilty of a crime, then it might be necessary to harm them to stop them from fleeing or avoiding justice. You shouldn't kill anyone who is no longer a threat and is fleeing, but harm can be justified.[/QUOTE]
Unless the offender is at this moment moving to put another person in harm's way, there is no reason to use any sort of weapon on them.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29537133]How can you justify hurting a fleeing person at all[/QUOTE]
To stop them from fleeing from a crime?
Called a citizens arrest.
One of those little deployable tazers would work wonders in a situation like that.
If they were in your reach would you not tackle them and wait for police to arrive?
Or as soon as the guy turns around you go "aw shucks hes gonna run away guess he got away this time"
Never shoot a person in the back or who was retreating from the fight. Sure fire way for the DA to skewer you and send you to prison.
[QUOTE=Explosions;29536954]I fail to see how it would decrease availability.[/QUOTE]
There are some methods of decreasing the pool of available guns on the black market, like:
1. People that possess guns should not recieve punishment if they give it to the police voluntarily
2. Ease of punishment/rewards for people that help the police track down gun sellers
3. Influx of new guns should be restricted, so people would have to import guns illegally which is harder than doing openly
[QUOTE=Ridge;29536928]Bull crap. How are the police going to arrest the carrier, when they don't know who it was or where they got the gun from, it being black market and all.[/QUOTE]
There are always forensic evidence such as foot-prints, finger prints, blood, gun smoke and other stuff. Doesn't make any difference since criminals don't register their guns with or without gun laws.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;29536913]I'm sorry but I'm calling absolute bullshit on this. Having one and not needing to use and have it collect dust for you all you care is FAR BETTER than wishing you had one in an proverbial shitstorm of a situation where it would greatly better your chances of surviving.[/QUOTE]
Similarily, it's better if neither you or the burgler is armed than if both are armed. Besides, having a gun in your home is a risk too, many people die from accidents where guns are involved. Diminishing the chances of being the victim of a crime is better than allowing firearms.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29536491]I don't find it believable that the military would be loyal to a government which has abolished democracy illegally. Besides, what would a party gain from imposing dictatorship? It wouldn't benefit the party, it wouldn't benefit the country's economy, it wouldn't benefit trade, it wouldn't benefit Sweden's political power internationally, it wouldn't benefit anything at all. All parties in the parliament are FOR democracy, because they realise that even a democratic opposing party would govern the country better than their own party under a dictatorship.
The government in Egypt was partly supported by the military, although there were cases of mutiny. The military and the police did kill demonstrants, the revolution was definitely not peacefully achieved, but it would probably have been more brutal if firefights were involved.
As I said, armed rebellion should only be used as a last resort. People in Libya and Syria tried to demonstrate peacefully but it failed, so armed rebellion is justified.
I've already answered this a couple of times. You don't need guns to defend yourself, it's a myth breeded by paranoid gun owners. Besides, fighting criminality by eliminating factors that lead to criminality such as poverty is much more efficient than simply allowing everyone to get a gun.[/QUOTE]
To your first part, Hitler was quite popular because he DID bring Germany out of the depression, and he used the people's anger about the Treaty of Versailles to fuel his rise to absolute power. He had Europe, if not the world to gain in power, and when you're stampeding through your trade partners you don't care what they think because you've taken them over. Hitler rose to power democratically, and kept it dictatorially. He saved Germany from the depression, and sought revenge on the people who imposed the harsh, unfair reparations on Germany and divided the land Germany had once owned, that they thought was unrightfully taken from them.
As for Egypt, if I'm not mistaken the military would not fire on civilians, but the police did.
As well, the ease of finding an unregistered firearm isn't like CSI, you can't jam a bullet in a machine and it tells you the exact make and model it was fired from, and then geolocate the firearm instantaneously. They can usually deduce a small range of firearms it was fired from, sometimes even the exact make of gun, but there are usually hundreds, if not thousands of them owned legally, and more in illegal circulation. If there were on legal, registered guns then the government would have on way of tracking any sort of firearm in the country. Banning guns doesn't make them less accessible, especially in a country with a land border to another. In Canada, the real issue with gun crime is illegal weapons smuggled across our unguarded and largely unpoliced border with the U.S., where you can get a gun at Wal-Mart. Banning people in Canada from having guns only disarms good Samaritans who seek only to protect their family and neighbourhood from illegally armed criminals. There's a couple of great sayings I like to use that my dad told me, [B]"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."[/B] and [B]"I'd rather be tried by twelve, than carried by six."[/B] I know most people think the cops are some amazing entity that can protect everybody, but the truth is they're not, and they do discriminate depending on the crime that is committed. In the time it takes for the police to get to your house, you and your family could all be dead, and the murderer could get away and never be caught. This is where the second saying comes in, I'd rather stand trial for defending my family than be carried to my grave.
Too much double spaced posts and walls of text.
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;29538216]Too much double spaced posts and walls of text.[/QUOTE]
Too many one liners.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29537717]
Similarily, it's better if neither you or the burgler is armed than if both are armed. Besides, having a gun in your home is a risk too, many people die from accidents where guns are involved. Diminishing the chances of being the victim of a crime is better than allowing firearms.[/QUOTE]
Oh give me a break. I'm sorry but this pseudo benevolence and naive view of yours is just depressingly lame. Against my better judgment I'll humor you with my takes on what you've just said.
[quote]Similarily, it's better if neither you or the burgler is armed than if both are armed.[/quote]
no No. NO. [b]NO.[/b] [h2]NO.[/h2] There's so many holes in this argument I don't know where to begin, I'll begin with the first that leaps to my mind. Two words: Homefield Advantage. No one knows your own home better than you. If God forbid something really bad happens and you have to fire your weapon, if he's armed, you have the full force of the law behind you and the chump is a fish out of water from a Legal perspective. He will have the book thrown at him.
[quote]
'Besides, having a gun in your home is a risk too, many people die from accidents where guns are involved.[/quote]
What the hell kind of argument is this?! You're gonna need a credible citation from a source which isn't a bad joke to back this statement up.
[quote]Diminishing the chances of being the victim of a crime is better than allowing firearms.[/quote]
Well gee nothing wrong there. I'm all for trying to solve economical problems creatively that doesn't make things annoying for everyone. I just look at firearms as the icing on the cake.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29537717]Similarily, it's better if neither you or the burgler is armed than if both are armed.[/QUOTE]
Why the hell would you want to give the bad guy a fair fight?
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
Besides, what if the guy shows up with a gun, and you don't have one? Are you going to ask him to put his away while you decide how the battle should go?
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
Ugh, there goes 3000
[QUOTE=yuki;29537213]If they're guilty of a crime, then it might be necessary to harm them to stop them from fleeing or avoiding justice. You shouldn't kill anyone who is no longer a threat and is fleeing, but harm can be justified.[/QUOTE]
federal law would like a word with you
[QUOTE=Mon;29540390]federal law would like a word with you[/QUOTE]
Do you know what a citizens arrest is
[QUOTE=Aman V;29537328]To stop them from fleeing from a crime?
Called a citizens arrest.
One of those little deployable tazers would work wonders in a situation like that.
If they were in your reach would you not tackle them and wait for police to arrive?
Or as soon as the guy turns around you go "aw shucks hes gonna run away guess he got away this time"[/QUOTE]
You are insane and the exact reason why guns need to have some form of restriction attached to them
Tasers are NOT a non-lethal weapon, and even if it was you don't fucking fire at someone who is fleeing you fucking maniac
[QUOTE=Kopimi;29542083]Do you know what a citizens arrest is[/QUOTE]
do you know what murder is
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
crap misread i thought you were advocating shooting fleeing robbers
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29542152]You are insane and the exact reason why guns need to have some form of restriction attached to them
Tasers are NOT a non-lethal weapon, and even if it was you don't fucking fire at someone who is fleeing you fucking maniac[/QUOTE]
LET THE CRIMINAL GET AWAY ITS ALRIGHT HE WON'T JUST GO OUT AND DO THE SAME THING AGAIN TO OTHER HOMES/PEOPLE
Why does apprehending/catching a criminal seem so wrong to you?
And I am pretty sure tasers are classified as non-lethal even though some people may not view them as such.
Not like it matters, they are banned in Canada for absolutely no reason so its not like they are an option.
[quote=Ond kaja]I don't find it believable that the military would be loyal to a government which has abolished democracy illegally.[/quote]
[quote]Besides, what would a party gain from imposing dictatorship?[/quote]
Well,
Russia, Germany, Cuba, All the Warsaw Pact countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, etc.
What sort of governments did/do these countries have?
Go read a history book.
How about we all get free assault rifles and shoot eachoter until only one is left, his personal security is now completely solid because there's no one else left to assault him and those assault rifles can be used to fend off any wild life easily.
[QUOTE=Falchion;29544531]How about we all get free assault rifles and shoot eachoter until only one is left, his personal security is now completely solid because there's no one else left to assault him and those assault rifles can be used to fend off any wild life easily.[/QUOTE]
you are retarded
You don't understand sarcasm. Guns don't make personal security any better. It sure doesn't do in America. Their total crime amount is world 1# (factual).
[url]http://theratsack.com/MYTH_verses_FACT.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29537717]
Similarily, it's better if neither you or the burgler is armed than if both are armed. Besides, having a gun in your home is a risk too, many people die from accidents where guns are involved. Diminishing the chances of being the victim of a crime is better than allowing firearms.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
MYTH:
Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem.
FACT:
Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.
For example regarding accidental death you are:
4 times more likely to burn to death or drown
17 times more likely to be poisoned
19 times more likely to fall
53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident.
In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm related accidental deaths from ages
0-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm related accident for everyone,
and nearly 500 times for ages 0-5.
Medical mistakes kill 400,00 people per year. The equivalent of almost three fully loaded Boeing 747 jet crashes per day, or about 286 times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths. This translates into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death,
and 1 in 56,666 gun owners doing the same.
Only 3% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all.
Around 2,000 patients each year - six per day - are
accidentally killed or injured in hospitals by registered nurses.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Falchion;29545877]You don't understand sarcasm. Guns don't make personal security any better. It sure doesn't do in America. Their total crime amount is world 1# (factual).[/QUOTE]
[quote]
MYTH:
Gun control reduces crime.
FACT:
Violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control. Most gun control laws in the United State have been written since 1968, yet the murder rate rose
during the 70's, 80's and early 90's.
In 1976 Washington D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996
while the national murder rate dropped 2 percent.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates,
10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation and ranks #1 in robberies, and #4 in both violent crime and murder. The robbery rate is 70% more than the national average. These numbers are likely low because one of their more violent cities, Baltimore, failed to report their crime levels.
In 2000, 20% of U.S. homicides occur in 4 cities with just 6% of the population
-New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.-
most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states.
New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation
and 20% of the nations armed robberies.
There are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal levels. If gun control worked, then we should be free of crime. Buth the Federal government concluded that no criminal that attacked a police officer was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local-- that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership.
They just laughed at gun laws. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29536491]
[b]I've already answered this a couple of times.[/b] You don't need guns to defend yourself, it's a myth breeded by paranoid gun owners. Besides, fighting criminality by eliminating factors that lead to criminality such as poverty is much more efficient than simply allowing everyone to get a gun.[/QUOTE]
You've been wrong a couple of times.
[quote]
MYTH:
Police are our protection - people don't need guns.
FACT:
Tell that to 18,209 murder victims, 497,950 robbery victims,
and 96,122 rape victims that the police could not help.
There are not enough police to protect everyone. In 1999, there were about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time. This includes desk clerks, command sergeants, etc. Far fewer thatn 150,000 cops are cruising your neighborhood. There were approximately 271,933,702 people living in the united states.
Thus there is only 1 on-duty police officer for every 1,813 citizens!
Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
The United States Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police hand not responded within 1 hour.
95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect.
75% of protective/restraining orders are violated and
police often won't enforce them unless they witness the violation.
Despite propmt law enforcement responses, most armed and violent attacks at schools were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention. Often these interventions were administrators, teachers, or other students who were licensed to carry firearms.
The courts have consistenly ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individual. Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. Well, except for politicians that receive taxpayer-financed bodyguards.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29536644]A common misconception is that banning guns will not affect criminals because they can get it illegally. If you ban guns, the availability would greatly decrease. It would be harder for criminals to get guns, and more expensive. And it could only be used in crime once, because the police would arrest the carrier quickly (gun crimes are of high priority).[/QUOTE]
It's called smuggling and the black market.
[QUOTE=Aman V;29542369]LET THE CRIMINAL GET AWAY ITS ALRIGHT HE WON'T JUST GO OUT AND DO THE SAME THING AGAIN TO OTHER HOMES/PEOPLE
Why does apprehending/catching a criminal seem so wrong to you?
[/QUOTE]
Maybe because you are not a trained professional and might end up killing someone.
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Siminov;29548349][url]*lots of "argumnets"*[/QUOTE]
Pretty much all of those "arguments" are filled with logical fallacies. They're trying to prove guns are not dangerous by saying how dangerous everything else is.
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
Also, no (good) sources.
[QUOTE=Aman V;29522093]Wait huh. You live in the US and apparently own a gun but you don't even know the basics of their gun laws...
FISHY STORY BUD.
No you do not need any licenses for firearms in the US (unless you live in one of the few shit tier states)[/QUOTE]
um what
I had to get a license for my usp and p99, I'm an immigrant if that has anything to do with it
[QUOTE=Explosions;29522074]Liar
Though his point is still valid.[/QUOTE]
no, parental control, internet's off at 11
also aman, I'll take a picture of them both in a second
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
oh, I went to a chili cookoff all day yesterday, that's why I had a friend over and didn't post yesterday
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
I'll even write "cccritical" in black OR blue sharpie if you want
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
k, uploading picture of usp, but then it's arma 2 time
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29537948]To your first part, Hitler was quite popular because he DID bring Germany out of the depression, and he used the people's anger about the Treaty of Versailles to fuel his rise to absolute power. He had Europe, if not the world to gain in power, and when you're stampeding through your trade partners you don't care what they think because you've taken them over. Hitler rose to power democratically, and kept it dictatorially. He saved Germany from the depression, and sought revenge on the people who imposed the harsh, unfair reparations on Germany and divided the land Germany had once owned, that they thought was unrightfully taken from them.
As for Egypt, if I'm not mistaken the military would not fire on civilians, but the police did.
[/quote]
Right, your romanticisation of nazi Germany is a bit creepy, I hope it's not intentional. If people living in a democracy want to abolish it, it's their democratical right to do so. However, this was not the case in Germany, as you implied. Hitler only got 30% of the votes in the election prior to imposing dictatorship, thus making the abolishment of democracy illegal.
Now, the main problem with comparing Sweden today with Germany in the twenties, is that the circumstances are COMPLETELY different. First of all, there wasn't any major peace-keeping organisation in the twenties (League of Nation wasn't powerful enough, mainly due to the US not being in it). Secondly, there wasn't any expansive economic cooperation between countries, like the EU is. Thirdly, the military of Sweden is relatively small compared to that of Germany. There are around 9 million people in Sweden. There are 80 millions in Germany, 15 million in Finland, Norway and Denmark, 60 million in Poland IIRC, so the numbers of troops would be very small, decreasing our chances of taking other countries' resources through warfare rather than trade. There is just nothing to gain. Hitler had the ability to achieve military power through imposing a dictatorship; we don't.
IIRC the government in Egypt ordered the military to shoot demonstrants, and there were some killings, but due to mutiny the order wasn't carried out fully.
[quote]
As well, the ease of finding an unregistered firearm isn't like CSI, you can't jam a bullet in a machine and it tells you the exact make and model it was fired from, and then geolocate the firearm instantaneously. They can usually deduce a small range of firearms it was fired from, sometimes even the exact make of gun, but there are usually hundreds, if not thousands of them owned legally, and more in illegal circulation. [/quote]When a gun is fired, the bullet scrapes against the side of the pistol or something like that, I'm not 100% sure on the mechanics behind this, but it produces a pattern on the side of the bullet, which is unique to the pistol that fired it.
[quote]
If there were on legal, registered guns then the government would have on way of tracking any sort of firearm in the country. Banning guns doesn't make them less accessible, especially in a country with a land border to another. In Canada, the real issue with gun crime is illegal weapons smuggled across our unguarded and largely unpoliced border with the U.S., where you can get a gun at Wal-Mart. Banning people in Canada from having guns only disarms good Samaritans who seek only to protect their family and neighbourhood from illegally armed criminals. There's a couple of great sayings I like to use that my dad told me, [B]"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."[/B] and [B]"I'd rather be tried by twelve, than carried by six."[/B] I know most people think the cops are some amazing entity that can protect everybody, but the truth is they're not, and they do discriminate depending on the crime that is committed. In the time it takes for the police to get to your house, you and your family could all be dead, and the murderer could get away and never be caught. This is where the second saying comes in, I'd rather stand trial for defending my family than be carried to my grave.[/QUOTE]If criminals won't register the guns anyway, tracking them is just as hard, regardless if guns are legal or not.
And as I have said, there are other means of defending yourself without the usage of guns. The chances of someone randomly breaking into your house with the intention to murder you are slim, so as I have said before, if other actions are taken to prevent crime you won't need a gun. And if you don't have a gun, your neighbor won't need one to defend himself from you, and his neighbor won't need one to defend himself from your neighbor.
You do have a point though, smuggling of guns is a problem. Legalising guns is not the solution to this problem. I have discussed some points which helps fighting the availability of guns in post #335.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;29538352]Oh give me a break. I'm sorry but this pseudo benevolence and naive view of yours is just depressingly lame. Against my better judgment I'll humor you with my takes on what you've just said.[/quote]Then we are in disagreement, I think it's naïve to think that less crime will happen if the people have access to more guns. If you think that my view is depressingly lame you may think so. I don't care about what you think about my views but I can't really discuss with you if you don't provide any motivation to why you think it's depressingly lame.
[quote]
no No. NO. [b]NO.[/b] [h2]NO.[/h2] There's so many holes in this argument I don't know where to begin, I'll begin with the first that leaps to my mind. Two words: Homefield Advantage. No one knows your own home better than you. If God forbid something really bad happens and you have to fire your weapon, if he's armed, you have the full force of the law behind you and the chump is a fish out of water from a Legal perspective. He will have the book thrown at him.
[/quote]Can you calm down? If you get enraged so easily by discussing on the internet maybe it's not healthy for you to do so. The chances of someone randomly breaking into your house and killing you are so slim that it's not worth legalising guns over that issue. Crimes can be fought other ways.
[quote]
What the hell kind of argument is this?! You're gonna need a credible citation from a source which isn't a bad joke to back this statement up.[/quote][url]http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=joBBR9p6M52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=.&age2=.&agegp=AllAges&deaths=123706&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1ageðnicty=0&ranking=20&deathtle=Death[/url]
1 of 200 lethal accidents are caused by firearms. 1 of 50 lethal accidents in the ages of 5 to 14 are caused by firearms so kids are more affected by guns than older people. Well, I admit that the problems are marginal compared to vehicle accidents, but it's still not non-existant.
[quote]Well gee nothing wrong there. I'm all for trying to solve economical problems creatively that doesn't make things annoying for everyone. I just look at firearms as the icing on the cake.[/QUOTE]That's where we disagree, I say crimes can be fought without equipping everyone with firearms.
[QUOTE=Ridge;29538629]Why the hell would you want to give the bad guy a fair fight?
Besides, what if the guy shows up with a gun, and you don't have one? Are you going to ask him to put his away while you decide how the battle should go? [/QUOTE]
You missed my point, if none of you carries a firearm, the outcome can be less fatal. You don't need to give the bad guy a fair fight, you can be submissive or you can incapacitate him. Just use your common sense and don't aggrivate him.
[QUOTE=Shostakovich;29544413]Well,
Russia, Germany, Cuba, All the Warsaw Pact countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, etc.
What sort of governments did/do these countries have?
Go read a history book.[/QUOTE]
That didn’t really answer my question. What would a party gain from imposing dictatorship in Sweden? It’s up to you to argument for your position, not me.
[QUOTE=Siminov;29548349][copypasted stuff][/quote]
To the first "myth": Yes, there are far more vehicle accidents than firearm accidents, that does not mean it's not a problem.
To the third "myth": I have through this thread stated that criminality is better fixed by curing poverty, I have NEVER said that the police is going to substitute guns in order to protect everyone. Frankly, it's an unrealistic thought, so political actions are required to prevent criminality. I think it's up to the state to fix problems that lead to criminality, not the individual.
[QUOTE=cccritical;29548819]um what
I had to get a license for my usp and p99, I'm an immigrant if that has anything to do with it
no, parental control, internet's off at 11
also aman, I'll take a picture of them both in a second
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
oh, I went to a chili cookoff all day yesterday, that's why I had a friend over and didn't post yesterday
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
I'll even write "cccritical" in black OR blue sharpie if you want
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
k, uploading picture of usp, but then it's arma 2 time[/QUOTE]
Alternate black and blue.
Can someone give me a reason as to why I should not be able to own (a) firearm(s)
[QUOTE=Aman V;29542369]LET THE CRIMINAL GET AWAY ITS ALRIGHT HE WON'T JUST GO OUT AND DO THE SAME THING AGAIN TO OTHER HOMES/PEOPLE
Why does apprehending/catching a criminal seem so wrong to you?
And I am pretty sure tasers are classified as non-lethal even though some people may not view them as such.
Not like it matters, they are banned in Canada for absolutely no reason so its not like they are an option.[/QUOTE]
Tasers can kill, so they're potentially lethal.
People like you are the reason I can't just go to a store and buy one
You say you need to attack a fleeing person because he might commit crimes later, but if you see someone driving drunk do you run his car off the road? He might accidentally kill someone later.
[img]http://gyazo.com/e4333a39d776edf1bf32681960005198.png[/img]
[editline]12:24 PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;29549696]Alternate black and blue.[/QUOTE]
fuck
I'll do that for the p99
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29549823]Tasers can kill, so they're potentially lethal.
People like you are the reason I can't just go to a store and buy one
You say you need to attack a fleeing person because he might commit crimes later, but if you see someone driving drunk do you run his car off the road? He might accidentally kill someone later.[/QUOTE]
pencils are potentially lethal
scissors are potentially lethal
cats are potentially lethal
and first you call the cops, if the drunk driver flees you should either pursue or try to render the vehicle immobile, same procedure you'd use if you're dealing with a robber/rapist/etc
HEY
HEY GUYS
You know what's dumb?
Banning things.
[img]http://gyazo.com/1247b7b64fed0e0322b7e28de37a242d.png[/img]
think for a second
law enforcement should have access to fire arms and no one else should
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
