Full or semi?SEREMAKER wrote:
I shoot back
semi, conserve ammo.
"soem good sugestions here my bro laughing at the one abotu dicks, haha I dont think dise would appreiceate that deSCRIPTION OF THEM BUT SIA ACCURATE WHY ARE MY LETTERS BIG WH"Doctor Strangelove wrote:
WHY ARE MY LETTERS BIGATG wrote:
i GIVE PROPS TO THE DEAD GUY. hE FOUGHT HARD FOR HIS LIFE.
That was no mexican standoff.
I'm sure if Macbeth had been there he'd have kicked the dude in the head, then teabagged him.
And here is the rebuttal you conservative pussy-hating whiner. In fact you provided it yourself.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.
I am sure all gun shops provide this type of mandatory training.
I am sure all gun owner are required to have this training
I am sure that if more people were carrying in that situation, there would have been 5+ more casualties from friendly fire seeing almost everyone has never been in a stressful situation.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
I can't say in that situation more guns would have helped. If everyone pulls a gun you suddenly don't have a clue who the target is, and if you shoot you have to bear in mind a bunch more people are suddenly going to see you as a threat.
No one having guns is IMPOSSIBLE, no one having LEGAL guns is another story. Bad year for MC!presidentsheep wrote:
ALternatly... No-one has guns and this doesn't happen in the first place?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.
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 nlsme1 (2009-09-21 07:13:34)
After the drug war between the mexican gangs, drug cartels, and military, I can understand why mexican citizens would run for cover. Senseless murders were becoming an everday statistic around Mexico city. Kudos for the guy in the white shirt for trying, unfortunately he could not get his footing and paid the price with his life. He should tackled the gunman's legs instead of going for the gun.