Poll

Is it.

yes. killed by colonel mustard.
20 (22.7%)
no. killed by miss scarlett
3 (3.4%)
killed by mrs. white
5 (5.7%)
killed by reverend green
3 (3.4%)
Professor Plum.
7 (8%)
killed by mrs pearooster
11 (12.5%)
with a lead pipe
3 (3.4%)
with a revolver
6 (6.8%)
with a wrench
4 (4.5%)
with a rope
13 (14.8%)
with a dagger
3 (3.4%)
with a candlestick
10 (11.4%)

Total Members Voted: 46

Author Topic: Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®  (Read 422364 times)

Again, hypothetically speaking, UK forgets up. Badly. (Probably never will. UK has a lower crime rate than the US thus the thread is pointed more towards American POVs.) So UK forgets up, all alliances are broken. You're forgeted. Luckily, all of your allied countries are too smart to attack the UK, as the attackers are most likely going to lose. However, Lets say France attacks you, they're invading. The armed forces can't take all of the people. Citizens have to defend their homes and country. France has guns and citizens have knives.

It is hard creating a scenario for you because you'll never have anything bad like that happen, but over in America there is a slightly bigger chance. We are in debt with China, and Russia is mad at us for reasons. Two of the biggest countries against us. Guns are good for many reasons as I stated in my big post earlier.

This debate bores me with talk about something I know nothing about

How about are ford's really a piece of stuff?

that looks like a hit with that could just blow a chunk out of you
Gee, you think that's the goal, maybe?

This debate bores me with talk about something I know nothing about
How about are ford's really a piece of stuff?
Then go away, lol.

This debate bores me with talk about something I know nothing about

How about are ford's really a piece of stuff?
Sorry we didn't know this thread is meant to revolve around your interests.

^^^
Gee, you think that's the goal, maybe?
pLOT TWIST it's actually for blowing holes in equipment and other military stuff

but man if it did hit a human

i'm pretty sure harm has pulled that card before
multiple times
they're the same gun in pretty much everything but aesthetics
Pretty much. I use them as form of literary test. If you want to debate firearms, you should at least have some knowledge that goes behind what the media says.

Anyway regardless whether or not a firearm is marketed to toward the military or not, a civilian weapon can be just as dangerous as a military one. Military Grade just refers to government standards for manufactured goods used by the us military. When comes to firearms, the only thing you should worry about is the caliber of the weapon, the skill of the shooter, and the mental state of the shooter. All calibers are dangerous, but knowing can make the difference between saving a life or limb.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 09:34:55 PM by Harm94 »


1.-2. I promise they're the same gun

3. Mini-14 > any typical shotgun or bolt-action rifle for defense; comparatively it is shorter, has lighter recoil(commonly chambered in the light-kicking .223), detachable mag that makes loading the rifle from storage quick and easy in an emergency, semiautomatic function means you're not screwed if you miss the first shot-- especially in the case of multiple assailants
The wooden one has a bayonet lug, yes, but they both have the exact same, legal detachable flash hiders already installed
3. Wouldn't a pistol just be more effective 90% of the time? In self defense anyways

It also isn't equatable to a literary test as a literary test proves that someone can/cannot read, while posting two pictures of a gun is just "Do you know how to image search or do you know this/these weapons by heart?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 09:38:36 PM by Donro98 »

Pretty much. I use them as form of literary test.

Anyway regardless whether or not a firearm is marketed to toward the military or not, a civilian weapon can be just as dangerous as a military one. Military Grade just refers to government standards for manufactured goods used by the us military. When comes to firearms, the only thing you should worry about is the caliber of the weapon, the skill of the shooter, and the mental state of the shooter.
Basically this.
If you watched the video I posted, the spokesman said "Blaming guns for murders is like blaming planes for 9/11."

Will pie crust get banned>?

Basically this.
If you watched the video I posted, the spokesman said "Blaming guns for murders is like blaming planes for 9/11."
I am aware that all calibers are dangerous, but in my opinion it would be something to take into consideration. For example knowing might allow to you factor in which cover might be the best. If someone is firing a 20mm shell at me, no way I am ducking behind wood or a car.

weird, guns are legal here and
no one has ever broken into my house, held a knife to my throat, and raped my family.
And I don't fear that people are going to enter my house with guns anyway.

Not everyone knows how to safely operate a gas stove, but that doesn't mean they should be outlawed
gas stoves, unlike guns, are not designed and created to kill people
People don't drink responsibly, even though their adults.
People don't take care of their children responsibly.
People don't drive responsibly.
at the very least these things are illegal, while, as far as I know, there's absolutely nothing illegal about just leaving a loaded gun on your kitchen counter
police should be able to own rocket launchers and light machineguns.
you what?? are you for real. what would they even need them for
This debate bores me with talk about something I know nothing about
How about are ford's really a piece of stuff?
then don't open the thread. but to answer your question yes they are

3. Wouldn't a pistol just be more effective 90% of the time? In self defense anyways
it would out to maybe 20 yards implying the user is adept with handguns, but guns with stocks are much easier to aim and control. I'm not sure how to explain this perfectly, so just think of the reasons why spec-ops units use carbines over pistols for close-quarters and urban combat

gas stoves, unlike guns, are not designed and created to kill people
national socialists tho

it would out to maybe 20 yards implying the user is adept with handguns, but guns with stocks are much easier to aim and control. I'm not sure how to explain this perfectly, so just think of the reasons why spec-ops units use carbines over pistols for close-quarters and urban combat

So in a self-defense situation, wouldn't most engagements be within 20 yards?

national socialists tho
...didn't kill people with stoves. they did it with guns and poison