Right to Bear Arms - Armor Games Community

95	22911

offline

Falcon4415

130 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 19, '10 10:16pm UTC

Haven't you people ever thought that, instead of giving everybody guns to defend themselves, it would be better to take the guns from those who have?
Example: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, so he has just bought a SIG (ex.). As he is walking in, he kills th bartender and trhee clients, but one brave man shoots him with his gun. Result: 4 corpses.
Example 2: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, and he'd love to get a real one, but as he can't buy them, he has instead bought the new COD 7. As he is having his coffee, he decides to call some friends to play th multiplayer campaign. Result: an evening of fun with the mates, 300 digital corpses, no real people killed.

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted June 19, '10 10:23pm UTC

Haven't you people ever thought that, instead of giving everybody guns to defend themselves, it would be better to take the guns from those who have?
Example: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, so he has just bought a SIG (ex.). As he is walking in, he kills th bartender and trhee clients, but one brave man shoots him with his gun. Result: 4 corpses.
Example 2: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, and he'd love to get a real one, but as he can't buy them, he has instead bought the new COD 7. As he is having his coffee, he decides to call some friends to play th multiplayer campaign. Result: an evening of fun with the mates, 300 digital corpses, no real people killed.

Wow. What a totally realistic scenario. No, no way he would smuggle guns if he was going to shoot. No, he would not make a home made bomb or Molotov, of course he would not use a knife, but every shooter who can't get a gun buys a game. Perfect, non flawed logic.

[quote]Haven't you people ever thought that, instead of giving everybody guns to defend themselves, it would be better to take the guns from those who have?\r\nExample: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, so he has just bought a SIG (ex.). As he is walking in, he kills th bartender and trhee clients, but one brave man shoots him with his gun. Result: 4 corpses.\r\nExample 2: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, and he'd love to get a real one, but as he can't buy them, he has instead bought the new COD 7. As he is having his coffee, he decides to call some friends to play th multiplayer campaign. Result: an evening of fun with the mates, 300 digital corpses, no real people killed.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWow. What a totally realistic scenario. No, no way he would smuggle guns if he was going to shoot. No, he would not make a home made bomb or Molotov, of course he would not use a knife, but every shooter who can't get a gun buys a game. Perfect, non flawed logic.

offline

TexanProvo

408 posts

Nomad

Posted June 19, '10 10:32pm UTC

Gun control and banning guns has never reduced crime and never will. In fact, stricter gun control and bans can lead to increased crime due to criminals now having less fear of running into a victom who is armed. On gun control not decreasing crime, there is a statistic from the British Home Office I believe (this is a year old by the way) that said crimes involving handguns were up in 2009 when the weapons were banned in the UK in the mid to late 1990s.

Also, on the take guns away from everyone argument, do you really think someone who wants to kill people needs a gun? People found hundreds if not thousands of ways to kill people without guns for centuries and they still can. Knives, clubs, bow and arrows (easily constructed), hands, bricks, firebombs (molotovs for example), axes, cars, home made chemical weapons (all incredients available at Wal-Mart), homemade bombs, and the list goes on and on and on. All banning guns would do if force these want to be mass murderers to get smart causing them to possibly use something many more times more deadly than a firearm.

Guns do kill people, that is a fact, that is a major part of their purpose, but just about EVERYTHING else in this world can be used to kill people with enough thought. What guns do is equalize the field so to speak. Yes, the deranged want to be mass murderer can get one but so can the average person and when the killer decides to make his move the average person can be able to stop them. Guns allow the people to defend themselves, not only from deranged madmen (and women) but the government (purpose of the 2nd amendment) and animals. Face it, guns have been invented and they are here to stay, all banning them will do and ever has done is hurt the law abiding citizen while giving criminals a free pass to do as they wish. If you don't like guns, don't own one, but don't restrict other people's freedoms, their right to defend themselves, due to your not liking something.

Also, here's a fun thought, guns were invented once and if criminals can't get them, they can just make them. This is seen in some countries and has been done for at least two centuries. A common homemade firearm will be small and easy to conceal without looking like a gun, get close, bang, run and ditch the weapon. Since it doesn't look like a gun, no one finds it and the evidence is lost.

Gun control and banning guns has never reduced crime and never will. In fact, stricter gun control and bans can lead to increased crime due to criminals now having less fear of running into a victom who is armed. On gun control not decreasing crime, there is a statistic from the British Home Office I believe (this is a year old by the way) that said crimes involving handguns were up in 2009 when the weapons were banned in the UK in the mid to late 1990s. \r\n\r\n Also, on the take guns away from everyone argument, do you really think someone who wants to kill people needs a gun? People found hundreds if not thousands of ways to kill people without guns for centuries and they still can. Knives, clubs, bow and arrows (easily constructed), hands, bricks, firebombs (molotovs for example), axes, cars, home made chemical weapons (all incredients available at Wal-Mart), homemade bombs, and the list goes on and on and on. All banning guns would do if force these want to be mass murderers to get smart causing them to possibly use something many more times more deadly than a firearm. \r\n\r\n Guns do kill people, that is a fact, that is a major part of their purpose, but just about EVERYTHING else in this world can be used to kill people with enough thought. What guns do is equalize the field so to speak. Yes, the deranged want to be mass murderer can get one but so can the average person and when the killer decides to make his move the average person can be able to stop them. Guns allow the people to defend themselves, not only from deranged madmen (and women) but the government (purpose of the 2nd amendment) and animals. Face it, guns have been invented and they are here to stay, all banning them will do and ever has done is hurt the law abiding citizen while giving criminals a free pass to do as they wish. If you don't like guns, don't own one, but don't restrict other people's freedoms, their right to defend themselves, due to your not liking something. \r\n\r\n Also, here's a fun thought, guns were invented once and if criminals can't get them, they can just make them. This is seen in some countries and has been done for at least two centuries. A common homemade firearm will be small and easy to conceal without looking like a gun, get close, bang, run and ditch the weapon. Since it doesn't look like a gun, no one finds it and the evidence is lost.

offline

Falcon4415

130 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 19, '10 10:35pm UTC

[sarcasm]I'm glad you reallized it.[/sarcasm]
Ok, what happens is that you have to educate people so they don't kill anybody. Peace can be a great thing, if we ever achieve it. The thing is that I don't understand how somebody can be educated into peace when there are people out there who think that the best thing to do with bad people is to follow the "an eye for an eye" rule.The flaw in this is that we'd have to abandon our selfish thoughts about having power over other people, the kind of power guns give. But, it is obvious that there are supperficial people (maybe you? [I'm not meaning to insult]) who won't.
Oh, one more thing: I can see you don't get what "example" means

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted June 19, '10 10:46pm UTC

[sarcasm]I'm glad you reallized it.[/sarcasm]
Ok, what happens is that you have to educate people so they don't kill anybody. Peace can be a great thing, if we ever achieve it. The thing is that I don't understand how somebody can be educated into peace when there are people out there who think that the best thing to do with bad people is to follow the "an eye for an eye" rule.The flaw in this is that we'd have to abandon our selfish thoughts about having power over other people, the kind of power guns give. But, it is obvious that there are supperficial people (maybe you? [I'm not meaning to insult]) who won't.
Oh, one more thing: I can see you don't get what "example" means

That would involve brainwashing. And your "Example" would only work if it was an angry five year old kid. It is called self defense, not eye for an eye. There is a huge difference. Self defense needs Salomone to attack you. If someone larger than you attacks you with a board with a nail in it, wouldn't you like to have a gun at that moment?

Violence is lodged in logic. The simplest, most effective way of getting rid of a threat or enemy is killing it. If you could invent a drug that gets rid of the Lateran feeling of anger and fear, distribute it to all human, then maybe you could have a chance at total peace. Until then, the innocent need firearms to defend themselves.

[quote]\r\n[sarcasm]I'm glad you reallized it.[/sarcasm]\r\nOk, what happens is that you have to educate people so they don't kill anybody. Peace can be a great thing, if we ever achieve it. The thing is that I don't understand how somebody can be educated into peace when there are people out there who think that the best thing to do with bad people is to follow the "an eye for an eye" rule.The flaw in this is that we'd have to abandon our selfish thoughts about having power over other people, the kind of power guns give. But, it is obvious that there are supperficial people (maybe you? [I'm not meaning to insult]) who won't.\r\nOh, one more thing: I can see you don't get what "example" means :)[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat would involve brainwashing. And your "Example" would only work if it was an angry five year old kid. It is called self defense, not eye for an eye. There is a huge difference. Self defense needs Salomone to attack you. If someone larger than you attacks you with a board with a nail in it, wouldn't you like to have a gun at that moment?\r\n\r\nViolence is lodged in logic. The simplest, most effective way of getting rid of a threat or enemy is killing it. If you could invent a drug that gets rid of the Lateran feeling of anger and fear, distribute it to all human, then maybe you could have a chance at total peace. Until then, the innocent need firearms to defend themselves.

offline

DDX

3,562 posts

Nomad

Posted June 19, '10 10:59pm UTC

well the problem of this is. if this law were to be abolished. I'd have to sell about 50,000 USD of pistols, assault rifles, sniper rifles, Smg's, and 2 shotguns in my basement.

strop has seen my ak47 that I built from scratch

anyway.

the innocent need firearms to defend themselves.

yea.

that about sums it up. it just makes you sleep easy at night knowing the person about to rob your house will become best friends with the ground and swiss cheese.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 19, '10 11:28pm UTC

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Why would you outlaw guns? If you're crazy enough to murder someone, you will not give your guns away. If you're a good citizen, you will. Therefore, you will merely end up with a bunch of murderers who have guns and a bunch of good citizens without guns. Wouldn't it be better if the citizens had guns instead, or at the very least, as well?

I read somewhere on the internet that these local citizens were afraid to eat at this star bucks because they served people who carried guns on them (legally). Why would you be afraid of such place? You couldn't find a safer place!

[quote]Alot of people have guns that aren't legally owned though

If they took away our right to bear arms you do realize these people would still have guns right?[/quote]

Exactly. I agree with everything Orion said in his post.

Think like a criminal for once. Think like a thief. If you had a gun and you were going to rob someone, would you rob someone who you thought might possibly be armed, or would you rob someone who you knew would most likely not have a gun. Think like a rapist. Are you going to tape the armed woman, or are you going to rape the unarmed woman? If it's illegal to carry around fire arms, you can safely bet they won't be armed. If you were in an area that was known for having armed civilians, would you attempt to rape a woman there?

Most criminals want to avoid using their guns if they have too, so they will avoid those who are unarmed.

Don't tell me you wouldn't be able to rob someone or rape someone because gun laws would prevent you from owning a gun. If you were willing to rob someone or rape an innocent lady, you will probably have no problem obtaining a gun for yourself.

Turns out that America has a higher muder rate than Canada (and it's per 100,000 so you can't argue population differences). Here's the fun part, Canada has laws restrciting fire arms.

Then explain the following:

Yeah, and look at what the gun ban in Chicago is doing! Law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves against criminals, the murder rate in that city has increased to almost 15% since Daley started that!

Neither argument can be proven, but I feel that because there's coincidences on both sides that we can't simply pull numbers up and use them as valid reasons alone.

Having the right to arms isn't necessary, pocket knifes are just as effective in close combat, especially if they have a gun to your head.

A pocket knife is always a GREAT tool to carry around. It can even be used as a weapon in case you need to defend yourself! However, if you pull a knife out on someone who has a gun pointed at you, you're a moron. Only an expert with extensive training would benefit from doing so.

If someone has a gun and all you have is a pocket knife, you will be best off to comply with the offender. Pulling a knife will threaten them and they will much more likely shoot you. If you have a gun, don't threaten them with it while they are holding their gun. If their gun is holstered, then you can tell them to put their hands in the air, otherwise you should simply shoot them.

Penn and Teller's BS on gun laws

You obviously don't have to agree with Penn and Teller, but they present some very good arguments as to why guns should be legalized. Pay close attention to the lady who's parents were shot at a restaurant. If one civilian had a gun, at least one innocent life could have been spared.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.\r\n\r\nWhy would you outlaw guns? If you're crazy enough to murder someone, you will not give your guns away. If you're a good citizen, you will. Therefore, you will merely end up with a bunch of murderers who have guns and a bunch of good citizens without guns. Wouldn't it be better if the citizens had guns instead, or at the very least, as well? \r\n\r\nI read somewhere on the internet that these local citizens were afraid to eat at this star bucks because they served people who carried guns on them (legally). Why would you be afraid of such place? You couldn't find a safer place!\r\n\r\n[quote][quote]Alot of people have guns that aren't legally owned though[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf they took away our right to bear arms you do realize these people would still have guns right?[/quote]\r\n\r\nExactly. I agree with everything Orion said in his post.\r\n\r\nThink like a criminal for once. Think like a thief. If you had a gun and you were going to rob someone, would you rob someone who you thought might possibly be armed, or would you rob someone who you knew would most likely not have a gun. Think like a rapist. Are you going to tape the armed woman, or are you going to rape the unarmed woman? If it's illegal to carry around fire arms, you can safely bet they won't be armed. If you were in an area that was known for having armed civilians, would you attempt to rape a woman there?\r\n\r\nMost criminals want to avoid using their guns if they have too, so they will avoid those who are unarmed.\r\n\r\nDon't tell me you wouldn't be able to rob someone or rape someone because gun laws would prevent you from owning a gun. If you were willing to rob someone or rape an innocent lady, you will probably have no problem obtaining a gun for yourself.\r\n\r\n[quote]Turns out that America has a higher muder rate than Canada (and it's per 100,000 so you can't argue population differences). Here's the fun part, Canada has laws restrciting fire arms.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThen explain the following:\r\n\r\n[quote]Yeah, and look at what the gun ban in Chicago is doing!  Law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves against criminals, the murder rate in that city has increased to almost 15% since Daley started that![/quote]\r\n\r\nNeither argument can be proven, but I feel that because there's coincidences on both sides that we can't simply pull numbers up and use them as valid reasons alone.\r\n\r\n[quote]Having the right to arms isn't necessary, pocket knifes are just as effective in close combat, especially if they have a gun to your head.[/quote]\r\n\r\nA pocket knife is always a GREAT tool to carry around. It can even be used as a weapon in case you need to defend yourself! However, if you pull a knife out on someone who has a gun pointed at you, you're a moron. Only an expert with extensive training would benefit from doing so.\r\n\r\nIf someone has a gun and all you have is a pocket knife, you will be best off to comply with the offender. Pulling a knife will threaten them and they will much more likely shoot you. If you have a gun, don't threaten them with it while they are holding their gun. If their gun is holstered, then you can tell them to put their hands in the air, otherwise you should simply shoot them.\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE]Penn and Teller's BS on gun laws[/url]\r\n\r\nYou obviously don't have to agree with Penn and Teller, but they present some very good arguments as to why guns should be legalized. Pay close attention to the lady who's parents were shot at a restaurant. If one civilian had a gun, at least one innocent life could have been spared.

offline

EnterOrion

4,220 posts

Nomad

Posted June 19, '10 11:36pm UTC

Um...proof? Pretty sure Canada has a lower murder rate.

That's not what I meant.

I meant that for average people killing each other, the rate is about the same. Very low. Most murders occur between illegal enterprises anyways, and their interests.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

It's true. A gun isn't going to magically get up, walk over to you, and kill you. It needs an asshole behind it.

Now answer me this, why have the deer populations increased by 20 million in 100 years?

. . . We need more hunters. A lot more hunters.

It's imperative that we keep deer populations down, or they are seriously going to screw with the environment.

Example 2: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, and he'd love to get a real one, but as he can't buy them, he has instead bought the new COD 7. As he is having his coffee, he decides to call some friends to play th multiplayer campaign. Result: an evening of fun with the mates, 300 digital corpses, no real people killed.

In a perfect world, we'd take our frustrations out in video games. In the real world, when people are pissed at something, they tend to break things. Be it a wall, or a couple dozen peoples heads. It takes a screwed up person to commit murder, let alone mass murder.

Example: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, so he has just bought a SIG (ex.). As he is walking in, he kills th bartender and trhee clients, but one brave man shoots him with his gun. Result: 4 corpses.

2 corpses. After the bartender is killed, the killer goes bye bye. Rather than say, seven corpses and then the killer killing themselves, equaling eight.

Most people who do that kind of stuff kill themselves shortly afterwards. Either way, they die.

Ok, what happens is that you have to educate people so they don't kill anybody.

Impossible. No matter how much educating we do (which we already do >.&gt, there will always be psychopaths out there. It's not external forces that push people to kill, it's internal. No normal person in their right mind would murder, under any circumstances. People in this day and age already have trouble killing people who are threatening their lives, let alone people who aren't.

that about sums it up. it just makes you sleep easy at night knowing the person about to rob your house will become best friends with the ground and swiss cheese.

I lol'd.

As for me, I'm getting a gun the second I'm allowed to. Makes me feel safer knowing that I'd have a gun. That knife under my pillow keeps telling me I should get a gun.

[quote]Um...proof? Pretty sure Canada has a lower murder rate.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's not what I meant.\r\n\r\nI meant that for average people killing each other, the rate is about the same. Very low. Most murders occur between illegal enterprises anyways, and their interests.\r\n\r\n[quote]"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt's true. A gun isn't going to magically get up, walk over to you, and kill you. It needs an asshole behind it.\r\n\r\n[quote]Now answer me this, why have the deer populations increased by 20 million in 100 years?[/quote]\r\n\r\n. . . We need more hunters. A lot more hunters.\r\n\r\nIt's imperative that we keep deer populations down, or they are seriously going to screw with the environment.\r\n\r\n[quote]Example 2: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, and he'd love to get a real one, but as he can't buy them, he has instead bought the new COD 7. As he is having his coffee, he decides to call some friends to play th multiplayer campaign. Result: an evening of fun with the mates, 300 digital corpses, no real people killed.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn a perfect world, we'd take our frustrations out in video games. In the real world, when people are pissed at something, they tend to break things. Be it a wall, or a couple dozen peoples heads. It takes a screwed up person to commit murder, let alone mass murder.\r\n\r\n[quote]Example: A guy walks into a coffee shop. He is mad about guns, so he has just bought a SIG (ex.). As he is walking in, he kills th bartender and trhee clients, but one brave man shoots him with his gun. Result: 4 corpses.[/quote]\r\n\r\n2 corpses. After the bartender is killed, the killer goes bye bye. Rather than say, seven corpses and then the killer killing themselves, equaling eight.\r\n\r\nMost people who do that kind of stuff kill themselves shortly afterwards. Either way, they die.\r\n\r\n[quote]Ok, what happens is that you have to educate people so they don't kill anybody.[/quote]\r\n\r\nImpossible. No matter how much educating we do (which we already do >.>), there will always be psychopaths out there. It's not external forces that push people to kill, it's internal. No normal person in their right mind would murder, under any circumstances. People in this day and age already have trouble killing people who are threatening their lives, let alone people who aren't.\r\n\r\n[quote]that about sums it up. it just makes you sleep easy at night knowing the person about to rob your house will become best friends with the ground and swiss cheese.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI lol'd.\r\n\r\nAs for me, I'm getting a gun the second I'm allowed to. Makes me feel safer knowing that I'd have a gun. That knife under my pillow keeps telling me I should get a gun.

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '10 12:40am UTC

this amendment was written in a time before there were any police or anything like that, so the only way to defend one's self was to have their own gun and defend by shooting the perpetrator

Not that the cops would have done much. They were rebelling against the government.

The cops can take a while to get to the location. It only takes a second to pull the trigger. If the crook has a gun and enters a place were there is many people, he can kill many people before the cops come. It has happened before and can happen again, easily. For example, pick a school shooting. They usually have many phone calls to the police and many dead, as well as a solo shooter. If the innocent people had guns, the shooter would be dead after killing one.

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 20, '10 12:40am UTC

Yep, and a lot of good the police do. Someone comes in your house at 0300, you don't know what's going on so you check it out. Guy with a gun is ransacking your electronics. Call the cops, they'll get there just in time to find out that you and your family have all died from gunshot wounds. Yay for the police.

Good thing I keep 3 firearms in my house, 2 of which are loaded and easily accessable at all times. Mr. Badguy wants to come visit he has a big surprise waiting...

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 20, '10 12:42am UTC

this amendment was written in a time before there were any police or anything like that, so the only way to defend one's self was to have their own gun and defend by shooting the perpetrator

If I break into your house, I can kill you before the police get there. If I go into a gas station and point a gun at the clerk, I will not be stopped by the police until I have already committed my crime.

Not only that, but we shouldn't depend on the police to always protect us.

Not only that, but I like to hunt.

Not only that, but I like to shoot guns.

Not only that, but I like it when people know I have guns to protect my house. I like to know that they will avoid my house to break into some "we don't believe in guns" household.

Not only that, but I don't mind a little danger in my world.

Not only that, but if every woman owned a gun, we would have far fewer rape victims above the age of 18 or 21.

Not only that, but I may need to go to war with my own government.

[quote]this amendment was written in a time before there were any police or anything like that, so the only way to defend one's self was to have their own gun and defend by shooting the perpetrator[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf I break into your house, I can kill you before the police  get there. If I go into a gas station and point a gun at the clerk, I will not be stopped by the police until I have already committed my crime.\r\n\r\nNot only that, but we shouldn't depend on the police to always protect us.\r\n\r\nNot only that, but I like to hunt.\r\n\r\nNot only that, but I like to shoot guns.\r\n\r\nNot only that, but I like it when people know I have guns to protect my house. I like to know that they will avoid my house to break into some "we don't believe in guns" household.\r\n\r\nNot only that, but I don't mind a little danger in my world.\r\n\r\nNot only that, but if every woman owned a gun, we would have far fewer rape victims above the age of 18 or 21.\r\n\r\nNot only that, but I may need to go to war with my own government.

offline

pHacon

1,903 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '10 12:42am UTC

Call the cops, they'll get there just in time to find out that you and your family have all died from gunshot wounds. Yay for the police.

Yep, reminds me of the saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

offline

EnterOrion

4,220 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '10 1:28am UTC

this amendment was written in a time before there were any police or anything like that, so the only way to defend one's self was to have their own gun and defend by shooting the perpetrator

What? Are you retarded? Do you really think that Britain didn't have police over here?

They did, although they were called 'soldiers,' and they were being oppressive a**es, so we whooped on them. Anyhow, there was a rank on every street.

That, and people didn't invade homes like they do today. If Thomas Jefferson or George Washington saw what many law makers are trying to do, they'd do a full on military revolution again. This is the crap Britain was doing.

Mr. Badguy wants to come visit he has a big surprise waiting...

Make sure he's over tile or in the front yard. No use in shooting him if your house is going to be a biohazard from his blood.

It only takes a second to pull the trigger

Under a second. Pulling the trigger is the fastest part. The slow part is aiming (which still takes under five seconds for anyone who's ever shot a gun).

That means you'll be in your living room, either shot in the face or tied up and pistol whipped by the time the cops show, if you ever had the chance to call them. Most of the time, you never get the chance.

[quote]this amendment was written in a time before there were any police or anything like that, so the only way to defend one's self was to have their own gun and defend by shooting the perpetrator[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhat? Are you retarded? Do you really think that Britain didn't have police over here?\r\n\r\nThey did, although they were called 'soldiers,' and they were being oppressive a**es, so we whooped on them. Anyhow, there was a rank on every street.\r\n\r\nThat, and people didn't invade homes like they do today. If Thomas Jefferson or George Washington saw what many law makers are trying to do, they'd do a full on military revolution again. This is the crap Britain was doing.\r\n\r\n[quote]Mr. Badguy wants to come visit he has a big surprise waiting...[/quote]\r\n\r\nMake sure he's over tile or in the front yard. No use in shooting him if your house is going to be a biohazard from his blood.\r\n\r\n[quote]It only takes a second to pull the trigger[/quote]\r\n\r\nUnder a second. Pulling the trigger is the fastest part. The slow part is aiming (which still takes under five seconds for anyone who's ever shot a gun).\r\n\r\nThat means you'll be in your living room, either shot in the face or tied up and pistol whipped by the time the cops show, if you ever had the chance to call them. Most of the time, you never get the chance.

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '10 2:06am UTC

[quote]Under a second. Pulling the trigger is the fastest part. The slow part is aiming (which still takes under five seconds for anyone who's ever shot a gun[quote]

Its a hyperbole.... By witch I mean it takes a small amount of time to fire a gun.

offline

EnterOrion

4,220 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '10 2:14am UTC

Its a hyperbole.... By witch I mean it takes a small amount of time to fire a gun.

Oh.

I'm bad with those.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Right to Bear Arms