BF2S Forums Bunch of Cowards or intelligent mexican survivors?

If someone is unarmed (which I'm assuming most of those people were) and they run away from a guy with a gun who is trying to kill someone, it's not really cowardice, it's survival instinct and common sense.

The_Sniper_NM wrote:

Here is your proof liberal faggots.

QFT

The_Sniper_NM wrote:

There were a few people who tried to stop him. However you saw what happened to that man.

This is why people carry weapons. If one person had been carrying (And knew how to use his weapon correctly in a stressful situation) the attacker would have been dropped within a few seconds.

Here is your proof liberal faggots.

inb4 people can just rage whenever and shoot people.

The_Sniper_NM wrote:

There were a few people who tried to stop him. However you saw what happened to that man.

This is why people carry weapons. If one person had been carrying (And knew how to use his weapon correctly in a stressful situation) the attacker would have been dropped within a few seconds.

Here is your proof liberal faggots.

ALternatly... No-one has guns and this doesn't happen in the first place?
Also if the attacker kills this one person who's carrying a weapon instead of the other way round, he then has more ammo to kill more people/drag hostage situations on longer. I really don't see the arguement for everyonee to be armed when your police are, and aare more capable of taking down some nutter with a gun than any random person on the street with a gun in their trousers.

Pro-gun nuts make no sense...
*pulls on flamesuit*

Last edited by presidentsheep (2009-09-19 13:26:28)

nickb64 wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

The_Sniper_NM wrote:

There were a few people who tried to stop him. However you saw what happened to that man.

This is why people carry weapons. If one person had been carrying (And knew how to use his weapon correctly in a stressful situation) the attacker would have been dropped within a few seconds.

Here is your proof liberal faggots.

ALternatly... No-one has guns and this doesn't happen in the first place?

Never gonna happen...

Criminals will always find ways to get weapons...

My point is that i'd rather that weapon wasn't a gun.

presidentsheep wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

ALternatly... No-one has guns and this doesn't happen in the first place?

Never gonna happen...

Criminals will always find ways to get weapons...

My point is that i'd rather that weapon wasn't a gun.

maybe that would be true 500 years ago when guns weren't as effective as they are now (only effective close range and in large numbers). this day and age however since guns are proven weapons criminals will always try to get the best weapon on the market to defend their property with, hurt others with, etc etc etc.

m3thod wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

ALternatly... No-one has guns and this doesn't happen in the first place?

Never gonna happen...

Criminals will always find ways to get weapons...

true but ze stats don't lie in ze countries where guns are banned.

This.  From what I remember doing a project for school, the next country with highest gun related deaths in Canada, with about 3000 compared to USA's 50,000.

HaiBai wrote:

m3thod wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Never gonna happen...

Criminals will always find ways to get weapons...

true but ze stats don't lie in ze countries where guns are banned.

This.  From what I remember doing a project for school, the next country with highest gun related deaths in Canada, with about 3000 compared to USA's 50,000.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_g … 00-000-pop

HaiBai wrote:

m3thod wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Never gonna happen...

Criminals will always find ways to get weapons...

true but ze stats don't lie in ze countries where guns are banned.

This.  From what I remember doing a project for school, the next country with highest gun related deaths in Canada, with about 3000 compared to USA's 50,000.

and the number 1 cause of firearms deaths here are suicides (by a ridiculous margin), followed by homicide (with a large bit of that criminal on criminal, usually gang related) and then accidental deaths, usually done by people who were never taught proper safe handling and how to clear a firearm safely...

add that to the fact firearms deaths have been on a steady decline since 1985, while it seems reporting of anything to do with guns has increased by 10,000,000,000,000%

and you have the knee jerk reactions people go to to try and fix things

like what happened after the massacre in Montreal in 89... never mind that more than half of the women died because of the police waiting outside while he walked around shooting people.

nope let's further restrict what innocent people can do based on the actions of an incredibly small number of people. why? because it's easier and makes it look like you're doing something, and looking busy gets you re-elected


as for the OP: can't blame them for running, i probably would too

It's hard to determine the circumstances surrounding that shooting, but I'd say it was the right move for everyone to scramble away in that situation. It's a shame though that the guy brave enough to stay and fight (probably not the smartest move, but I dunno the circumstances) got shot. Did he die?

SEREMAKER wrote:

I shoot back

ATG wrote:

i GIVE PROPS TO THE DEAD GUY. hE FOUGHT HARD FOR HIS LIFE.

That was no mexican standoff.

WHY ARE MY LETTERS BIG