logo Sign In

Warbler

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
7-May-2003
Last activity
28-May-2021
Posts
18,708

Post History

Post
#106180
Topic
happy birthday Lucass
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106180/action/topic#106180
Time
I'm will Bossk. I'm not going to down Joe_H's level. I made that mistake too many times with J____. As for the complains about my hatred of Lucas. I'm sorry if it offends you. It's just the way I feel. If you feel I'm wrong to hate him, you have the right to your opinion, but I'm still going to hate him. I don't think I'm in the minority in my hatred. I don't think I've made this forum look as bad some. But I will try to be more carefull about what I say. Just so you know, I was only kidding about wanting him to choke on his cake, I would not want anyone, even those I hate to choke on somthing and die. This is my last post on this thread.
Post
#105869
Topic
Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105869/action/topic#105869
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage


Another issue was raised about whether or not regular citizens could actually succeed against a strong military. To this I say that history is repleat with examples of successful uprisings with help from other interested parties. For example: The uprising in Northern Ireland in the early part of the 1900's. They were given rifles by Germany (to strike at England) and they succeeded.


England of the of the early 1900's was nowhere near as powerful as the US military of today. At that point and time did the English military have nuclear weapons?

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite


I'm a man, and I'm not a killer. I'm pretty sure you're not a killer as well. Why can't all men be like that?


ask Hitler and Stalin that.

Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
In Florida, people were actually required by law to either submit to their attacker, or run away.


Let me get this straight, in Florida if a person came into my home with the intent to kill me and prevented me from escaping, I would be legally required to "submit" and let him kill me? That is absurd!

Post
#105865
Topic
Hero (not the movie)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105865/action/topic#105865
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk


As for emergencies and whatnot. Before 15 years ago, no one had a cell phone and they survived just fine.


Well, I still don't think we should be able to stop people from making cell phone calls to 911 in an emergency. Just because they couldn't do it 15 years ago, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it now.

Post
#105737
Topic
MANGLER BROS., INC. IS NOW CLOSED HERE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105737/action/topic#105737
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
That's a good question.
But enough about that. I know you're quite alive; I wished you back. Like I said I would.


no, I'm alive because you never killed me. You never killed me because you are already dead. You are dead because I poured acid over your armor, it ate the armor and then Dayv attacked and killed you. Now do you understand?



Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

On a semi-related note: Any word on Motti?


unfortunatly, I have heard nothing



Post
#105741
Topic
Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105741/action/topic#105741
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller

You are spending time considering the thoughts and intends of a criminal.
1. The man in the store had to make a quick decision as to what to do.
2. There is no way to know the intents of anyone, you can only make assumptions. If I see a man walk into a Blockbuster with a shotgun, what conclusion should be drawn?


All I'm saying that most store clerks and bank tellers are trained to let the criminal take what he wants and leave, instead of trying to interfer and risk getting people hurt. That risked turn a simple robbery into a murder scene. I say again what if he missed and hit a bystander, what if the criminals fired back and hit him or a bystander?

Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller

About assault weapons:
My response to you Warbler depends on how I read into what you wrote.
"do we need assault rifles?"
--The invention of the assault rifle was unneccessary. In that sense we did not ever need assault rifles.

"do we need assault rifles?"
--Since they do exist and criminals often do not stop to question the legal implications of having one, I can see where the public would want to feel protected and want to be allowed to use them as well.


My point here is this. Assault rifles are made for the military, not for ordinary civilians. Hand guns provide enough protection. Ordinary civilians do not need Assault rifles.

Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
About aiming for the leg:
I will give you that someone shot in the leg can fire back, but aiming for the chest or stomach is not the answer either.
A shot to the chest can do serious damage to the heart or lungs. If the shot is "lucky", the ribcage can actually work against the body. A bullet can ricoche around inside doing lots more damage.

A shot to the stomach threatens the liver, intestines, plenty of other lymphatic organs as well (not to mention the stomach itself. I've also heard that the stomach is the most painful place to be shot.

Hitting them just about anywhere will leave them in enough pain to keep them from returning fire for at least a few seconds, the leg is non-vital and prevents them from standing.


All I'm saying is what any law enforcement/miltitary expert would tell you. Yes, hitting someone in the stomach or chest would hurt more and do more damage and that's the point. You have made the desion to shoot someone because if you don't they will shoot you. The main objective in shooting the criminal, is to render him incapable of shooting you or someone else. What is more likely to accomplish that goal? Aiming for the harder to hit target, the legs, where even if you manage to hit your target he might still be able to fire back, or aiming for the easier target stomach/chest area? As you said a shot to the chest can do more damage, and a shot to the stomach is more painful and therefor either will more likely render the criminal incapable of firing back than a shot to the leg. I know it sounds terrible, but its the truth.

Consider two situations:

  1. a man walks into your house with the intent to kill you and your family, you get your gun, shoot him in the leg then he fires backs and kills you and your family.

  2. a man walks into your house with the intent to kill you and your family, you get your gun, shoot him in the chest/stomach he collaspes and dies, but you and your family are unharmed.

which would you rather have happen?