alanschu

I'm looking for evidence, not your statements unfortunately. I would not have posed the question if I had considered myself part of the "we" when you say "That we know is true." This isn't some sleight against you. I'm looking for the evidence for my own personal interest.

I have often heard this statement, and with some introspection it makes sense, but I've never seen much in the way for significant studies. You did mention that crime rates went down after gun laws were made lax in Florida (which is good), but I'm curious if there are other confounding variables that I'm unaware of. After finding out how ineffective the death penalty seems to be at reducing murder rates, I'm curious if our commonsense is leading us to a false conclusion with this as well.

I think they are an option under 'Train' IIRC EDIT: I realize now you may be talking about something completely different.

Yes.

To the auction house!

How is the tongue thing alarming? I believe the tongue was chosen because it was particularly sensitive, and not prone to desensitization. Check this out

yup... if sombody was resposnisble for putting you in a "kill that poor sap or I'll kill you" situation. the other person can be charged with Murder I watch wayyyy too much Law And Order. Provocation.

Working out itself I believe is an aphrodisiac. Or maybe it's just all the sweaty men?

Yes, the solid, bacteria infested sweat is the suck. I don't really think I stink immediately after playing a sport. But if I go to bed without showering, the aroma is less than pleasing.

I have not heard that one in about 15 years

Sid the Kid seems to be a pretty darn good player.

I have heard bad things about the Steam version, but if you can find something that doesn't include the expansion, I'd still pick it up.

I'd imagine the "repulsive" part of sweat has much more to do with the fact that it's a haven for bacteria, and if you don't do anything about it, they're going to be explusing waste by products on your unclean body which creates a not so pleasant smell.

You could make an argument that there have been some US Presidents that don't meet your criteria. What exactly is a "realistic" president?

While I'll admit I laughed at it, I can see how someone may have felt that the end game was a bit too extreme. I think the problem there may be that they personified the robot a bit too much. I was laughing long before the end of the commercial, so I wonder how necessary it was to it. With what they said about quality control afterwards, you could read in that we're so obsessed with quality control, that we commit suicide if there's a mistake. It reminded me of the old IKEA Lamp commercial. The punchline of that one though, it that of course the lamp doesn't have feelings.

I was reading your post, until I came up to this. I never once said that the vaccine was basically useless. How you were able to come to this conclusion: when I stated straight up in this very thread that I have zero issues with pharmaceutical companies making drugs and vaccines and making money off them. Merck and Co., Inc. can do whatever the heck they want to do. Furthermore, coming to the conclusion that I feel the vaccine is "basically useless" is equally absurd. The funny thing is that, the reason why I spout off all of these other reasons, stems from the fact that it's utilizing public funds in doing so. And when I say stuff like HPV induced cervical cancer is rare, it's because places like the National Cancer Institute and Center for Disease Control say so. I've seen you pull stuff like this out in other arguments before, and I will not be bothered to respond anymore to someone that either chooses to not read what I type, or is incapable of understanding it. Have a nice life.

Tasers are very effective non-lethal takedown. THe biggest issue with them is, as far as I know, if you miss, you're in trouble. And you won't have the benefit of deterrence on yourside.

I have already acknowledged that this idea would not work. Aram pointed it out already.

I seriously doubt any law enforcement officers are trained or even allowed to fire warning shots. There's too much risk in firing a bullet in a public area to waste one making noise. You'll find situations where law enforcement officers do fire warning shots. Sometimes bad things happen, sometimes not. But they have fired them. Maybe it's policy now days not to do it to avoid hitting non-hostile targets, but that part is irrelevant. If warning shots were used in the past, I'm guessing it was for a reason. And I doubt that the only response that a suspect had was to immediately fight back because of it. A situation in Taiwan was immediately subdued when an officer fired a warning shot. Yes, there was concern that things would have been different if his shot had accidentally hurt someone. But if the only response would be to fight back, the warning shot would not have worked. If you're immediately threatening the life of someone, all bets are off. Is it safe to assume that the mere presence of someone in your house is an immediate threat to your safety and life? Even if you catch him 20 feet across the room raiding your refrigerator, both hands in plain sight and not carrying a weapon? Air forces and Naval forces also fire warning shots to subdue planes and naval vessels. The shot across the bow used to be a signal that we cannot see what colours you are flying. I would argue that they aren't a waste of time. I'm sure they'd be effective. You say your gun encounter was anti-climactic. Do you think you'd still feel the same if he fired a round inches from your head? Your point about too much chance of an innocent getting hurt is a good rationalization of why to not fire a warning shot. Keep in mind of course, that my initial (impossible) idea was about a blank round. My discussion with Aram is about whether or not the sound of a bullet does anything more than convince the person being fired at that the person firing the gun only means to kill them, and should therefore fight back.

There was an expansion called Unfinished Business, but I was never able to find it in stores.

I strongly recommend it. It's an excellent strategy game with RPG elements. Insanely fun.

Hahaha. Took me a moment to figure out what you were talking about.

Because it's what Canadians want to see! I wonder if Toronto games were still all the rage in the 80s on CBC.

People are in fact spooked by loud noises. Go into a public place and fire your gun in the air, see how many people stop in their tracks. If someone means to kill or otherwise harm you, the chips are already stacked against you. I hope you sleep with a loaded gun and a bullet in the chamber. The thing is, if you look at the thread, the idea going around is to shoot the intruder under any circumstances. It's a bit bold to assume that simulating the sound of a gunshot is only going to make the target think you mean to kill him. If that was the only response a target would have, warning shots would not be utilized by police or military forces. I'll admit, I've never been in a situation where I'd need to coerce someone with a weapon, but I'd be very surprised if firing a warning shot would not demonstrate illicit a fear response from the intruder. And I was unaware of any significant differences between blank rounds. Obviously my idea would have limited success.

It did not look as though your argument was directed that way. Especially considering your current post includes amendments not originally stated, and excludes an amendment originally stated. It certainly looked like you were arguing that if he were to want to get rid of the second amendment, we might as well start tossing out other amendments just because.