America low on bullets - Polidicks

[QUOTE=doommarine23;17486264]That's pretty stupid. I'm willing to defend my self, but I'll avoid killing them at all costs. What the fuck happened to being in the middle ground?[/QUOTE] Being shot is not as easy to recover from as in the movies. If you are not willing to have a death on your karma, then you should not be pointing a gun at someone. [editline]03:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=James*;17486288]We don't have that much stabbing Tabloid sensationalism[/QUOTE] Would you rather be shot or stabbed? I'd rather be shot. And don't pull the "I'd Rather not die" card.

[QUOTE=protoAuthor;17486309]Being shot is not as easy to recover from as in the movies. If you are not willing to have a death on your karma, then you should not be pointing a gun at someone. [editline]03:34PM[/editline] Would you rather be shot or stabbed? I'd rather be shot. And don't pull the "I'd Rather not die" card.[/QUOTE] Aye, I'd rather be shot.

[QUOTE=James*;17486294]And thus much more likely to get shot than me ;)[/QUOTE] Pretty much 90% of the shootings here are gang related. I live in a small town 80 miles from the biggest city. Everyone has a gun here, nobody is stupid enough to use one on someone else. The last time someone got shot here was the result of drunk rednecks shooting into the woods, one bullet happened to hit someone in the jugular.

[QUOTE=protoAuthor;17486309]Being shot is not as easy to recover from as in the movies. If you are not willing to have a death on your karma, then you should not be pointing a gun at someone.[/QUOTE] I really doubt people instantly die from a leg wound. Infact Allied Forces (in order of entry into the war) Country Pop. Killed/Missing Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths) China 450m 1.3 million 1.8 million 3.1 million 9 million Poland 35m 130,000 200,000 330,000 2.5million U.K. 48m 400,000 300,000 700,000 60,000 France 42m 250,000 350,000 600,000 270,000 Australia 7m 30,000 40,000 70,000 -- India 360m 36,000 64,000 100,000 -- New Zealand 2m 10,000 20,000 30,000 -- So. Africa 10m 9,000 14,000 23,000 -- Canada 11m 42,000 50,000 92,000 -- Denmark 4m 2,000 ? ? 1,000 Norway 3m 10,000 ? ? 6,000 Belgium 8m 12,000 16,000 28,000 100,000 Holland 9m 14,000 7,000 21,000 250,000 Greece 7m 90,000 ? ? 400,000 Yugoslavia 15m 320,000 ? ? 1.3million U.S.S.R. 194m 9 million 18 million 27 million 19 million U.S.A. 129m 300,000 300,000 600,000 -- Taken from [url]http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob62.html[/url] It's a casualty list. Notice USA 129m, only 300,000 deaths and 300,000 wounded, not bad for 129Million. Of course, some of those weren't gunshots but you get my point.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;17486345]I really doubt people instantly die from a leg wound. [/QUOTE] No, they die a slow and painful, irreversible death if you hit them in an artery.

[QUOTE=protoAuthor;17486372]No, they die a slow and painful, irreversible death if you hit them in an artery.[/QUOTE] Without proper medical care. A good hospital can save a man from a shot to the face with buckshot.

[QUOTE=protoAuthor;17486186]You never, ever, EVER shoot to wound. If you point a gun at someone, you'd better be damned ready to kill them.[/QUOTE] More retarded bullshit. No No NO. You shoot to STOP, not to kill/murder. You are not the judge and jury no matter how pretentious you are.

[QUOTE=protoAuthor;17486309]Being shot is not as easy to recover from as in the movies. If you are not willing to have a death on your karma, then you should not be pointing a gun at someone. [editline]03:34PM[/editline] Would you rather be shot or stabbed? I'd rather be shot. And don't pull the "I'd Rather not die" card.[/QUOTE] I don't know in honesty Call me crazy but I don't think legalising guns is a good way to reduce knife crime

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17486397]More retarded bullshit. No No NO. You shoot to STOP, not to kill/murder. You are not the judge and jury no matter how pretentious you are.[/QUOTE] No, if you are not willing to accept the fact that they might die when you shoot them, no matter what you intend, you should not be pointing a gun at them. That is what I meant.

[QUOTE=James*;17486400]I don't know in honesty Call me crazy but I don't think legalising guns is a good way to reduce knife crime[/QUOTE] We can make any potentially dangerous object illegal. How 'bout that?

[QUOTE=Stickmoose;17486280]With firearms there are no middle grounds, any squeezing of the trigger is potentially fatal[/QUOTE] That's called lethal force, not murder. There's quite a big difference between shooting with the intention to stop a situation and to end someone's life.

[QUOTE=OvB;17486392]Without proper medical care. A good hospital can save a man from a shot to the face with buckshot.[/QUOTE] Yeah, if they get care on time.

[QUOTE=protoAuthor;17486412]No, if you are not willing to accept the fact that they might die when you shoot them, no matter what you intend, you should not be pointing a gun at them. That is what I meant.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's called using lethal force, not murder. If you were shooting solely with the intent to end someone's life, it's then outside the scope of the law and you're a murderer. You hope by shooting someone that you don't end up killing them and that your shot will stop their actions. This is why it's important to choose responsible self defense ammunition.

[QUOTE=OvB;17486413]We can make any potentially dangerous object illegal. How 'bout that?[/QUOTE] Again, guns are not potentially dangerous they ARE dangerous Obviously a wide scale ban on knives is stupid as knives have other uses but generally gangs don't carry around kitchen knives

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17486449]Yes, it's called using lethal force, not murder. If you were shooting solely with the intent to end someone's life, it's then outside the scope of the law and you're a murderer. You hope by shooting someone that you don't end up killing them and that your shot will stop their actions.[/QUOTE] Exactly, but you have to accept the fact that they may die.

[QUOTE=protoAuthor;17486372]No, they die a slow and painful, irreversible death if you hit them in an artery.[/QUOTE] As the guy below you said. People have survived shotguns to the face Infact, a few months ago a lady survived a pistol to the brain, totally fine Humans aren't fragile little beings. You honestly think Medical care couldn't save them?

lol SHIT BILLY THE DEMOLIBERALFAGGOTCRATS ARE HERE TO TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY GRAB YOUR RIFLE GRAB YOUR GUN THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN

If an object's main and only purpose is to be dangerous most people shouldn't have one

[QUOTE=protoAuthor;17486463]Exactly, but you have to accept the fact that they may die.[/QUOTE] The fuck do you think "lethal force" means?

[QUOTE=doommarine23;17486466]As the guy below you said. People have survived shotguns to the face Infact, a few months ago a lady survived a pistol to the brain, totally fine Humans aren't fragile little beings. You honestly think Medical care couldn't save them?[/QUOTE] Humans aren't supermen, either. Everyone is different. You always have to assume for the worst when wounds are involved.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;17486466]As the guy below you said. People have survived shotguns to the face Infact, a few months ago a lady survived a pistol to the brain, totally fine Humans aren't fragile little beings. You honestly think Medical care couldn't save them?[/QUOTE] Humans are very fragile

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17486478]The fuck do you think "lethal force" means?[/QUOTE] Hey, I'm just saying people who are unwilling to exert lethal force should not be pointing guns at people.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17486449]Yes, it's called using lethal force, not murder. If you were shooting solely with the intent to end someone's life, it's then outside the scope of the law and you're a murderer. You hope by shooting someone that you don't end up killing them and that your shot will stop their actions. This is why it's important to choose responsible self defense ammunition.[/QUOTE] Nobody wants to murder someone, if you feel the need to shoot someone of course you shoot with the intention to stop them, not kill them. But if someone is threatening my life, and I feel the need to shoot, and my shoot does end up killing them, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, They should not have been in that situation in the first place. And in this case you would be under the castle doctrine, thus not a murderer.

[QUOTE=James*;17486471]If an object's main and only purpose is to be dangerous most people shouldn't have one[/QUOTE] [media]http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8928/mykimber.jpg[/media] This gun is called a kimber LTPII. Do you know what LTP stands for? Limited ten production. (This is a class the pistol is designed to compete in) Its sole and only purpose is to compete in sport. It's not some mystical weapon of death. It's no different than a golf club. Please stop with the sensationalism, you sound like fox news. [editline]06:49PM[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;17486502]and my shoot does end up killing them, I'm not going to loose sleep over it[/QUOTE] When/If you ever grow up, you'll lose that retarded mindset. Especially if you're ever forced to use lethal force against someone. Even if it doesn't end up killing them, you'll be significantly changed.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17486513][media]http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8928/mykimber.jpg[/media] This gun is called a kimber LTPII. Do you know what LTP stands for? Limited ten production. Its sole and only purpose is to compete in sport. It's not some mystical weapon of death. It's no different than a golf club. Please stop with the sensationalism, you sound like fox news.[/QUOTE] Guns were originally designed to kill, other uses came after Again, most people don't shoot for sport so most people don't need guns And unlike most people, people who shoot for sport often know what they're doing [editline]11:49PM[/editline] And don't ever compare me to Fox News

[QUOTE=James*;17486538]Guns were originally designed to kill, other uses came after Again, most people don't shoot for sport so most people don't need guns And unlike most people, people who shoot for sport often know what they're doing [editline]11:49PM[/editline] And don't ever compare me to Fox News[/QUOTE] Why not? You're repeatedly making sweeping generalizations. I would venture to say very very few legit gun owners have ever had to use the gun for anything more than sport/recreation. Who cares about secondary uses, the firearm I have was designed as a competition piece. Bow and arrow has practically no recreational use due to how limited it is. Do you propose we ban those too? How about any kind of sharp object? They were originally designed as a tool for killing. You keep coming up with ridiculous arguments.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17486513] When/If you ever grow up, you'll lose that retarded mindset. Especially if you're ever forced to use lethal force against someone. Even if it doesn't end up killing them, you'll be significantly changed.[/QUOTE] I'm not some sociopath who has no problem shooting someone, I wouldn't go out shooting someone for shit's and gigs. I would only ever use lethal force if that person intended to do the same to me, in which case it wouldn't bother me the slightest knowing I would have ended up in a grave if I haven't shot first.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17486599]Why not? You're repeatedly making sweeping generalizations. I would venture to say very very few legit gun owners have ever had to use the gun for anything more than sport/recreation. Who cares about secondary uses, the firearm I have was designed as a competition piece. Bow and arrow has practically no recreational use due to how limited it is. Do you propose we ban those too? How about any kind of sharp object? They were originally designed as a tool for killing. You keep coming up with ridiculous arguments.[/QUOTE] People don't really go out and kill each other with bows so no there's not much point in banning them.

[QUOTE=OvB;17486622]I'm not some sociopath who has no problem shooting someone, I wouldn't go out shooting someone for shit's and gigs. I would only ever use lethal force if that person intended to do the same to me, in which case it wouldn't bother me the slightest knowing I would have ended up in a grave if I haven't shot first.[/QUOTE] Then why did you say you would shoot someone for taking your belongings? [editline]06:57PM[/editline] [QUOTE=James*;17486629]People don't really go out and kill each other with bows so no there's not much point in banning them.[/QUOTE] I don't remember going out and trying to kill people with guns either. Very few gun owners do. Remotely none are legit gun owners. Again, stupid argument.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17486599]Why not? You're repeatedly making sweeping generalizations. I would venture to say very very few legit gun owners have ever had to use the gun for anything more than sport/recreation. Who cares about secondary uses, the firearm I have was designed as a competition piece. Bow and arrow has practically no recreational use due to how limited it is. Do you propose we ban those too? How about any kind of sharp object? They were originally designed as a tool for killing. You keep coming up with ridiculous arguments.[/QUOTE] Don't forget about Javelins. They were made for combat purposes and are now use just for sport. They can, and have killed a few people.