View Single Post
Old 03-21-2006, 04:17 PM   #89 (permalink)
dksuddeth
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
He might have survived without a gun.
Will, he is dead. He did NOT survive without a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
There were a thousand times a thousand variables at play in the scenereo that led up to this man's death, and pretending like we know having a gun might have effected the outcome is silly without some fundamental understanding of both the situation above, and general situations involving armed robberies.
whats not to understand about the situation above will. he's dead. he was unarmed. If he was armed, he might still be dead...MIGHT, but he might now be alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
You can't just claim a statistic and therefore it's true. I could just as easily have said, " he would have had even less a chance to live had he been armed", and without proof, it would have been just as true as your statement. I'm from Missouri, show me the proof.
how is less of a chance to live when you're dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The victim might have lived if the robber with the gun was on heroin, so we should legalize heroin!!!
thats irrelevant, although if the robber was high, he might have missed. I'll grant you that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Edit: I'm an anti gun, hippie from California, and you are a gun loving guy from Texas...are we walking cliches?
about a hundred years ago, you guys were gunslinging gold panners. what happened?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73