Grenades aren't designed to kill, either. Carefully used, you could use the pressure wave to stun or remove several toes to incapacitate your attacker.

Were you talking?

The one time I feared one I just lopped it off with my kitchen knife. No gun needed. Other than that they're pretty blah. Very few men are good with it. God bless the ones who are. God help the ones who just think they are (stop looking around the room, you know who you are.)

Yep, if you'd quit staring at my tits and jacking off, you might hear something from time to time. :3eye:

Hey! Tangent--- go check out the penis power video I posted in Nothingland! Intriguing stuff.

Ha!!! good one.:D
Did you remember to pull it out after you cut it off?!?! I think it may still be up your twat.:eek: It's starting to smell.

Those aren't tits! those are bug bites.:p

Well that explains a lot. Wonder why my doc didn't find it?

:D
Ok, Ms. Babbit.

;)

What's that I hear? Did someone in here ask for more statistics?

How are they going to "protect themselves"? Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?

And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?

Watched and read his bullshit.
Religion.

If it were not for handguns I would be dead and/or injured many times over. The argument against them is lost on those like me, who have used them for what they were intended, as a tool.

Her point, O Spexx The Irrational, Tedious And Purblind, who refuseth ever to see, in saecula saeculorum -- I could go on but I dislike boring myself -- is that if murder is in your heart, you'd do it with a big wet rock, and if murder is not in your heart, you wouldn't do it with a case of weeping, overage dynamite.

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

Stats are a fine bullet with which to kill ignorance -- begging any question of ulterior motives.

Anyone who's seen genocide wants it to stop happening. There's one known way, and it's never been refuted.

Actually, if we kept staring at your tits and stopped the jacking off, we could better help you feel good from time to time. :right:

So, speaking of tits: sensitive nipples, or not very? The wife can about put me on the ceiling going for mine. :blush:... more yummy yummy than fruit salad, I'm tellin' ya.

[Since having heard The Wiggles sing "Fruit Salad" in four-part male close harmony, I've been imagining an entire battalion of big tough Australian infantrymen singing this on being presented with fruit salad in the mess tent and reducing the crusty old mess sergeant to agonies of embarrassment.]

Anyone with a decent education knows you can make stats say anything you want.

4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend this toothpaste. They don't tell you the dentists polled have no teeth, or are dead, or if it's just that they recommend ANY toothpaste, and the toothpaste being touted is, of course, A toothpaste.

I'm just not bowled by spouting stats. It's like a goddam Spout Circus.

I think this thread is too closely resembling the other thread specifically debating guns. This should be about Cho and the incident, I think. Yes, I did my share of making it go off topic, but we should post VT developments here.

What I've got is your number, Spexx: ninety-seven percent of all defensive gun uses end satisfactorily without a shot fired. Of the remaining three percent, less than half have a lethal outcome.

You never did know shit about self defense, Spexx, so your opinion shouldn't even count with yourself. The conclusion you've drawn is resolutely at variance with the reality.

Puh, I doubt it. 90% of your purported skillz were actually considered ineffective in providing good by 5 out of 19 women surveyed in Upper Bulgaria in 2004. ;)

What it always comes down to, Spexx, in all these threads, is that you wouldn't kill someone who is just trying to steal your stuff. You value the criminal's life slightly less than yours or your family's, but always more than everything else.*

You need to accept that lots of people don't have that particular hangup.


*I can't recall if you've weighed in on whether your wife getting raped would count as life-threatening or something not worth killing over.

But don't try it this way unless you want to do all the dying. Center of mass ONLY, front sight -- press trigger. Those are the fundamentals. Hitting someone in a limb is strictly a matter of chance, and verily I say unto you you don't want to gamble with your life doing that. Limb hits do not necessarily disable; what you must do is disrupt something immediately important, like the central nervous system. You cut his spine or blow out his brains, he's done, and that problem's over. But there are a couple of useful secondary target areas: the heart is in the center of mass and it's lethal about all the time (there have been a couple-three miracles, but they took place on the operating table and not the field of battle) though it may take some seconds for the perp to collapse rather than the instant switch-off of a brain hit; and also there is the pelvis. Bust that with a bullet and the perp's on the ground without hope of movement and in immediate danger of dying of shock. If you've double-tapped him there and hit him in the balls too, he's in even worse danger. To hit him in the pelvis you aim at his nuts. Aiming low generally works in close firearms combat anyway, particularly with pistols: most people get excited and take too much front sight, which points the pistol considerably higher than what the shooter thinks is his aim point. A nut-shot can end up being a central nervous system hit right between the eyebrows.

By now some readers will have gone all squeamish. While that is proof you have the full measure of human feeling, try this for a human feeling: "He's dead, I'm alive, and that's the way I wanted it."

The mischief is compounded by the unfortunate fact that I don't know any women from Upper Bulgaria. :neutral:

[Quel fromage.] {to rhyme with dommage}

When your side of the argument is weak, resort to name-calling and insults.

And yet you continue to bore everyone else.

Sure he can. A truly committed criminal will keep trying to kill you until you kill him. Ultimately, this will happen.

.

So what posession is worth killing for? A TV? A pack of gum? Certainly there's a continuum - where do you killers draw the line?

Really? Tell us all the stories when you failed to avoid conflict or failed to resolve conflict in a peaceful manner.

There's a term for this: Closed Minded.

1. False.
2. Yes. Because your first premise is incorrect.

Then he shall die.

Oh, no... the hand-holders want to disarm you... and did disarm the students, so over thirty of them died.

The purple part resembles the mouth, therefore this researcher failed to list the weaknesses of his statistical mode, therefore the study is invalid and no evidence exists that blips may or may not be eaten by this round yellow-purple thingy.:o

You don't play much Pac-Man, do you?

Actually, no, I will not answer you questions for two reasons. You don't answer mine and it is sad, bordering on sick, for you to want to hear those kinds of stories.
It is not closed minded, it is experience. Where is yours?

Probably not, since it's a long way from 1983.

Any chance I get to use this quote from Baseketball, I will:

Denslow: Now wait a minute, hear me out! Now you kids with your loud music and your Dan Fogelberg, your Zima, hula hoops and Pac-Man video games, don't you see? People today have attention spans that can only be measured in nanoseconds.

Cop-out alert.

Use to. When it first came out, when I was a teen and college student. Wasn't that before you were born?

Since I was getting ready to graduate from college back then and Dan Fogelberg was in fact before 1983, I suspect you were what? 4 years old?

Who, me? I remember my friend's Junior High aged brother telling us (high school girls) about this amazing game you could play at the grocery store. Back then, it was fascinating!

I forgot you were in my age range. :o

I'm an old bat...42 (though am told I look early 30's, clean living and all) :) Graduated HS in '83 and college in '87!

That was the only place we could play it back then, I use to play it at the 7/11. That and Donkey Kong, and a bunch of other Atari games, I can't even remember them all. We use to play those at the Pizza place just off campus. Back then we could drink beer at the age of 18 (3.2), you just had to drink twice as much.

I think those two posts are in direct conflict. Nice try, though.

And all the gun holders want to kill you, arm all the students so at least half of them may die. :right:

I never said america was the most violent nation in the world for gun violence. Maybe you should actually pay attention to what people are saying before spouting off your rubbish. Perhaps a good reading comprehension course would do you good as soon as you leave that fantasy world you live in.

I don't think you have any stories. I think you exhibit this false internet bravado to bolster your self-esteem, which, in itself, is sick.

Wrong, nice try though.

:corn:

You are not unprotected if you wound someone trying to kill you. So you are incorrect.

Many people kill in the line of duty, police and military come to mind most quickly and I am sure that there are others, who may in the course of their duties in those capacities who may need to kill when they are neither "protecting themselves or loved ones", for example they may be protecting others.

Back to throwing insults, again, and you call me sick?
I could make-up as many stories as I have time for and you would take that as proof?
I worked on a ranch and defended myself against poachers and animals and was an armed bouncer and security for three years. What you believe means nothing to the world.

Just giving as I get.

:handball: :morncoff: :corn:

Sorry man, I have crap to do sometimes.

It comes down not to what they're taking, but the manner in which they're taking it.

--If you break into my house, I don't care if it's just to admire the decor, you are worthy of being shot.
--If you walk by me on the street and jerk my piece of gum out of my hands and keep walking, no, that is not worth shooting over.
--If you pull out a knife and demand that I give you my gum, then yes, you are worthy of being shot.

Each scenario is different, and I consider the average person capable of differentiating.

I dunno about that Clod...sometimes, the judgment of Americans scares the shit out of me. :D

Hold on a darn minute, thar! Are you insinuating that there is something in this world more important than posting on the Cellar? I think Syc's right:

The Cellar comes first, damnit!

I don't know... If your house is fully engulfed in fire, you don't go back in, or send a family member in to get your stuff. You're thankful that you and yours got out without injury - that what you lost was onlt "stuff". If someone with a knife wants your gum, and you try to stop him, you and/or your loved ones could end up harmed - is it worth it? Even if you draw you gun and kill him, think of the shit you'll have to go through. You many even regret it, creating emotional problems for yourself. And what if the assailant falls dead, and his knife accidently slices little clod on the way down? Or if your child has post traumatic stress disorder from seeing his mom waste another human being? How could these results be more favorable than giving the fucker the gum, and moving on with your life?

How do you know that's what will happen? Crystal ball? Crazy people with weapons don't always do what you think is logical. So, then what? More barbed wire and flood lights? :rolleyes:

Yeah -- if someone threatens you with deadly force for GUM, they might be a tad unpredictable!

That all assumes that all he really wants is my gum. If I could be guaranteed that all I would lose is my stuff, like I would in a fire, then no, I probably wouldn't escalate the situation by bringing out my weapon. But you have no idea what's going to happen when someone's already at the point of threatening another person with a weapon. I would have to assess the situation as it arose--but if I had no weapon, then that whole set of options would be unavailable to me if it turned out he really wanted more than the gum.

I know you don't want to legislate the guns away, you just want to convince people of their foolishness, but I don't think you really understand that the very fact that I might have a gun is a huge deterrant for him, whether or not I do have one. Truth is, we don't actually own a gun, because I don't have the extra cash or the time/interest in proper upkeep of the machinery. We had them in my family growing up, and I would certainly consider it in the future if our lifestyle or neighborhood changed. But if I ever hear anyone breaking into our house, you can be sure that the first thing I will do is yell, "Honey, get the gun!"

I am not against total disarmament in society but there should be at campuses. If students and faculty were allowed to carry guns it wouldn't have done anything except for the one in a million chance that someone with a weapon would be close, calm, and skilled enough to do anything. Campuses have many other resources to prevent crime, rape, etc, that normal society doesn't so there is no reason to have a gun for protection. I wouldn't be too against police having guns but I don't see how it would help much since most crime doesn't occur with an officer nearby.