Page 1 of 17
This fucking scares me...
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:00 pm
by reefsurfer
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:03 pm
by jester!
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:05 pm
by GONNAFISTYA
Yeehaw!!
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:05 pm
by Duhard
If I were a girl, I'd ask reefsurfer for a date.
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:11 pm
by losCHUNK
o shit.....
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:12 pm
by losCHUNK
its only because yanks are to lazy to run after em
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
sigh. chalk up another reason to leave the country.
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:21 pm
by S@M
im going to America in Feb - only for 5 days though luckily.... might buy a kevlar vest...
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:59 pm
by Transient
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:sigh. chalk up another reason to leave the country.
Don't point a gun at anyone and I don't think you'll have a problem. Extreme cases notwithstanding.
This bill is retarded, but it's not guns that are the problem. There are more guns per home in Canada than in the States, yet how many murders are there with a firearm each year? Something like 10, versus 10,000 in the States.
Re: This fucking scares me...
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:59 pm
by Freakaloin
reefsurfer wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm
wtf is wrong with you people!!?

what a pussy...
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:45 pm
by tnf
depends on the circumstances...if the opportunity to retreat presents itself as a viable option that puts the victim in a safer position than if they just shot the attacker, they should retreat. But they should not have to put themselves into additional risk.
Will there be cases where someone is shot when the potential victim could have retreated? Probably. But that could be solved by the fucking criminal NOT ATTACKING THEM IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.
Re: This fucking scares me...
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:45 pm
by tnf
Freakaloin wrote:reefsurfer wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm
wtf is wrong with you people!!?

what a pussy...
Another thing we agree on.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:56 am
by S@M
tnf wrote:depends on the circumstances...if the opportunity to retreat presents itself as a viable option that puts the victim in a safer position than if they just shot the attacker, they should retreat. But they should not have to put themselves into additional risk.
Will there be cases where someone is shot when the potential victim could have retreated? Probably. But that could be solved by the fucking criminal NOT ATTACKING THEM IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.
assuming of course that weirdo's will only shoot someone once they have proven criminal intent.... etc etc etc. Sounds like loop hole haven.
Re: This fucking scares me...
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:02 am
by seremtan
reefsurfer wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm
wtf is wrong with you people!!?

why does this scare you? you live in sweden
frankly i think europeans are too faggy about firearms. while there's little evidence for the oft-made claim that gun ownership reduces crime, i think letting people own guns is simply a matter of trust. i mean, if the govt can't trust the people to own firearms, why should we trust the govt to have nukes and carrier fleets and tomahawks ffs.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:02 am
by tnf
there are loop holes, i don't disagree with that...but again, I am a big believer in victim's rights, which is something often counter the prevalent attitude in today's society that people need all sorts of legal justification to protect themselves. I am not advocating all-out vigilante justice here (and that isn't going to happen with this law).
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:06 am
by +JuggerNaut+
i can understand this type of thing for the home, but for anything else - car, work, street.... this is idiocy.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:07 am
by seremtan
well, if it doesn't reduce assaults etc in florida the utilitarian argument goes out the window really...
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:44 am
by Canis
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:46 am
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
don't forget to normalize for population density Canis
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:46 am
by Canis
Sorry, but population density is irrelevant here. You should have enough brains to figure that out.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:50 am
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
no shit
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:00 am
by Canis
This is a matter of a law describing what one can do in a given situation, not a comparison of the effects on murder rates that a given punishment yields (which covers too many variables -- including population density -- for a proper conclusion). This current comparison comes down to the probability of occurrence and the abuse/misinterpretation of the law to justify one's actions (higher occurrence of folks using this to kill someone because they were "acting in self defense).
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:46 am
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
It also decreased with higher population density, which may at first sight seem strange, but it should be borne in mind that rural areas, with low population density, often have higher murder rates than the peaceful suburbs.
http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.cf ... il&id=1527
just keep sticking to your false assumptions and denial
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:57 am
by andyman
Florida rules. It's December 18th and I am not cold when i go outside.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:26 am
by jester!
"*kzzzkzz*eerrrrr hes coming right at us!"
Blam!
Cant wait to hear about all the new murders. It seems every day there is another reason to be happy not to be in the US. :icon26: