• Welcome to Valhalla Legends Archive.
 

The Thread Formerly Known As: Kerry Found...

Started by Hazard, March 02, 2004, 08:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
|

j0k3r

Quote from: Grok on March 08, 2004, 05:22 PM
If all the liquid on Earth evaporated, and you still found a way to drown, I would be convinced that removing guns would not reduce violent crimes by gunshot.
Would blood filled lungs count as drowning? Or does blood count as liquid?
QuoteAnyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin
John Vo

MrRaza


iago

Quote from: j0k3r on March 10, 2004, 09:08 PM
Quote from: Grok on March 08, 2004, 05:22 PM
If all the liquid on Earth evaporated, and you still found a way to drown, I would be convinced that removing guns would not reduce violent crimes by gunshot.
Would blood filled lungs count as drowning? Or does blood count as liquid?

It would be more like pneumonia
This'll make an interesting test for broken AV:
QuoteX5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*


j0k3r

I'm talking about a lung being punctured, and blood filling it, effectively drowning the person in their on liquid. I was implying that it was possible, just unlikely.
QuoteAnyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin
John Vo

iago

Well, fluid filling the lungs from the body is pneumonia, and blood is a bodily fluid.  

What if you were giving somebody a blowjob and drowned on "it"?  Would that be the most embarassing way to die or what? :)
This'll make an interesting test for broken AV:
QuoteX5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*


MyndFyre

wow, all this time I'm thinking that you guys are talking about Kerry, I jump right to page 9, and you're talking about blood and vomit drownings....
QuoteEvery generation of humans believed it had all the answers it needed, except for a few mysteries they assumed would be solved at any moment. And they all believed their ancestors were simplistic and deluded. What are the odds that you are the first generation of humans who will understand reality?

After 3 years, it's on the horizon.  The new JinxBot, and BN#, the managed Battle.net Client library.

Quote from: chyea on January 16, 2009, 05:05 PM
You've just located global warming.

iago

Quote from: Myndfyre on March 11, 2004, 12:31 PM
wow, all this time I'm thinking that you guys are talking about Kerry, I jump right to page 9, and you're talking about blood and vomit drownings....

Haha yeah, I almost missed this thread, too.. I looked at page one, then I re-read once there were 8 pages.
This'll make an interesting test for broken AV:
QuoteX5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*


Adron

That's rather typical for this forum, discussions flowing freely...

j0k3r

I led the thread off topic by accident, and when I tried to clarify what I was trying to say it just kept on going...

Once again, what I meant was that if you took away all the guns you could, it might redyce gun crimes, but there would still be guns that people hid, and this might cause them to use them more because people wouldn't have a way of defending themselves, and the cops no way of protecting others.
QuoteAnyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin
John Vo

Adron

But, the more they use the guns, the faster they get taken away.. So it balances out a little.

j0k3r

That's assuming they get caught, and assuming they can get to the person holding the gun without being shot/killed.
QuoteAnyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin
John Vo

Naem

I've skipped about four pages of reading so forgive me if this has already been said:

Adron, you make a valid point that if there are no guns, none in the hand of a law-abiding citizen and none in the hand of a criminal, then everyone is safer. However, it's incredibly unrealistic to assume that you can get rid of guns from criminals. The worst situation a criminal would encounter is that he would have to pay a higher price for his gun (supply and demand). The worst situation a law-abiding citizen would encounter is that they get rid of all their guns and are now completely defenseless.

Now, consider this. When nearly everyone has a gun on them, for example, many areas of Texas, do you think a criminal is going to take their chances at robbery? Hell no. You may argue that the criminal may just kill the person outright because of an assumption that they have a gun, but that is unrealistic to assume. I'd venture to say that 99% of the time a petty thief will not commit murder when unprovoked just to steal something. Unfortunately I don't have official statistics with me, but it is my understanding that the crime rate is extremely low for cities in Texas where most people have guns.
اگر بتوانید این را بهخوابید ، من را "پی ام" کنید

j0k3r

I was going to mention "completely defenceless", but decided not to. Here's why:

Guns are not the only weapons.
Knives are just as potent, and in a house you might be close enough to use one.
Anything can become a weapon in the hands of someone who's creative enough.
You don't even need a weapon, like with the knife situation martial arts can be a tool.
Words can sometimes be used to pursuade a criminal not to kill you, I'd hardly call that defenceless.
You think America would leave their citizens utterly defenceless? I don't think so... I mean they could even give citizens flash bangs(let your mind wander on that one...), tear gas, or smoke grenades.
QuoteAnyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin
John Vo

MrRaza

Straight out of cs eh...

muert0

I got a 95lb pittbull for protection.
To lazy for slackware.

|