| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arvald
Caldari
Ninjas N Pirates
Pirate Coalition
   |
Posted - 2008.07.23 16:25:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Plumpy McPudding
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
Might I recommend the AK-74 with the GP25 underbarrel grenade launcher?
Finally Zoidberg is a crafty consumer.
Hello...I'll take 8!!
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.
|
Rawrior
Gallente
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 16:40:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
Might I recommend the AK-74 with the GP25 underbarrel grenade launcher?
Would need a class 3 license for that. No sir, I've got 4 30 round clips, 2 of them being combined. If I can't hit someone at 10-15ft in 60 shots then I deserve whats coming to me.
someone has been playing too much bf2... and, afaik and unmodified ak-47 straight from the ruskie factory that turned it out, is prohibited.. period.. no license can allow you to own a fully automatic firearm.. or if your in like mexico its a different story, pix of ak or stfu plox
Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 16:53:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Arvald
IF that kind of weapon was as effective as disabling a person and as easy to use as easy to obtain and as cheap as a normal handgun/bullets shure id definately use it, but as i see it if someone breaks into mu home they their rigths are forfeit and they deserve to get shot/cracked over the head with a baseball bat
No one's rights are ever forfeit under the rule of law. That's why they're rights instead of privileges or liberties.
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Again with the 'what if's'. I don't deal with what if's if someone is breaking into my house. I'll repeat, if the locks don't deter them, if the barking dog doesn't deter them, then they WILL meet the business end of a AK-47.
I live by a simple rule in life: You can do anything you want to but YOU have to pay for the consequences.
If you want to rob a house, that's great, just keep in mind it may be your last mistake.
That's an easy decision for you to make, because someone interested in robbing your house would have made their intentions much more clear by intentionally bypassing the various other means you have of dissuading people from entering your home.
But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home? Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?
What is the overall cost to the health care system (additional injuries or death, grief counseling) and the justice system (hearing/trial costs for the property owner in addition to the criminal)? What is the cost in how people view each other? The issue is much larger than the individual property owner vs. the thief.
----------------
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Arvald
Caldari
Ninjas N Pirates
Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 16:58:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Arvald
IF that kind of weapon was as effective as disabling a person and as easy to use as easy to obtain and as cheap as a normal handgun/bullets shure id definately use it, but as i see it if someone breaks into mu home they their rigths are forfeit and they deserve to get shot/cracked over the head with a baseball bat
No one's rights are ever forfeit under the rule of law. That's why they're rights instead of privileges or liberties.
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Again with the 'what if's'. I don't deal with what if's if someone is breaking into my house. I'll repeat, if the locks don't deter them, if the barking dog doesn't deter them, then they WILL meet the business end of a AK-47.
I live by a simple rule in life: You can do anything you want to but YOU have to pay for the consequences.
If you want to rob a house, that's great, just keep in mind it may be your last mistake.
That's an easy decision for you to make, because someone interested in robbing your house would have made their intentions much more clear by intentionally bypassing the various other means you have of dissuading people from entering your home.
But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home? Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?
What is the overall cost to the health care system (additional injuries or death, grief counseling) and the justice system (hearing/trial costs for the property owner in addition to the criminal)? What is the cost in how people view each other? The issue is much larger than the individual property owner vs. the thief.
yes i suppose i should have rephrased that
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.
|
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 17:04:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Rawrior
no license can allow you to own a fully automatic firearm
This is incorrect. Such a license can be obtained from the ATF and is good for like 3 years. And frankly, turning a semi-auto into a fully auto is usually a matter of trimming a spring...and no-one's ever gonna inspect your weapons internals or care at all.
Breaking into a home is serious business in these United States. I figure the guy got what was coming to him. Depending on where you live, if you wait around long enough to figure out if you're just gonna lose a television or lose your life, it's already too late. If state law dictates (not all of them do) that a burglar's life is forfeit when he engages in such a crime, then them's the breaks.
|
Kyanzes
Amarr
Utopian Research I.E.L.
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 17:06:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Rawrior
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
Might I recommend the AK-74 with the GP25 underbarrel grenade launcher?
Would need a class 3 license for that. No sir, I've got 4 30 round clips, 2 of them being combined. If I can't hit someone at 10-15ft in 60 shots then I deserve whats coming to me.
someone has been playing too much bf2... and, afaik and unmodified ak-47 straight from the ruskie factory that turned it out, is prohibited.. period.. no license can allow you to own a fully automatic firearm.. or if your in like mexico its a different story, pix of ak or stfu plox
As he said you need a Class 3 licence. Also, you must buy your automatic weapon of choice from a Class 3 authorized seller. You also have to keep it in a safe.
---------------------------------------------
GET TO THE CHOPPA!!!
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. |
Akiba Penrose
The Movement
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 17:14:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Some of the rest of you seem to be content with losing your 32" plasma flatscreen tv that you worked hard for and some of you seem content with being injured/maimed/killed/****d by some one in your home who isn't supposed to be there. Maybe I should become a burglar since we have so many who are so willing to roll over and let it happen. As for me though, I've got a personal arsenal of around a dozen guns and if the locks on my doors don't deter them, if a barking dog doesn't deter them, then they will meet the business end of a AK-47 and I will not stop to ask them a questionnare about their state of mind or their use of force. Criminals will not think twice about the crime.
Killing eachother with AK-47 over 32" plasma flatscreens now are we?
Tick tock, tick tock. 
|
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 17:20:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Akiba Penrose
Killing eachother with AK-47 over 32" plasma flatscreens now are we?
Yeah, that is a bit disappointing. If someone wants my crap, they can take it...just do it when I'm not home. I'm not concerned with protecting material posessions when it comes to home defense. I'm concerned with protecting myself and my wife.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 17:25:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Rawrior
pix of ak or stfu plox
Awaits comments about pants.
Originally by: Rawrior
someone has been playing too much bf2... and, afaik and unmodified ak-47 straight from the ruskie factory that turned it out, is prohibited.. period.. no license can allow you to own a fully automatic firearm.. or if your in like mexico its a different story
Quote:
What does "C & R" mean?
C & R stands for Curio and Relic, which is a classification of articles and firearms as specified by BATF. Some states (like MI) require that machine gun owners also be federal C&R License holders, but anyone can buy a C&R gun. Also, if you have a C&R license and purchase a C&R gun it may be shipped directly to you once the transfer is approved, rather than to a Class 3 Dealer in your state before tranfer to you.
You return the completed Form 4's to the in-state dealer, along with (2) passport size photos, (2) fingerprint cards, (1) citizenship authorization, and a transfer tax check made payable to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the one time per item transfer tax. A $200.00 transfer tax applies to Short BBL Shotguns, Short BBL Rifles, Machine Guns and Suppressors; a $5.00 transfer tax applies to items classified as Any Other Weapons - "AOW".
As you can see, there is a license that allows you to own autmatic rifles (Mine however is semi). However there is still a list of munitions that are banned. Like you may not buy a 1963 made yugoslavian AK-47 but you can buy a 84 China made AK-47 (just an example). The same applies to ammo clips, bayonets, ammunition, scopes, and so forth.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 17:34:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Tarminic
That's an easy decision for you to make, because someone interested in robbing your house would have made their intentions much more clear by intentionally bypassing the various other means you have of dissuading people from entering your home.
But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home?
Turn on the front porch light (first deterrant)
Originally by: Tarminic
Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?
They make locking mailboxes (First deterrant). you can also go to your post office and attain a P.O. Box (even better)
Originally by: Tarminic
What is the overall cost to the health care system (additional injuries or death, grief counseling) and the justice system (hearing/trial costs for the property owner in addition to the criminal)? What is the cost in how people view each other? The issue is much larger than the individual property owner vs. the thief.
Medical bills - several thousand (granted they get shot)
Court fees - several thousand (granted he lives)
Making the perp shit their pants - priceless.
For everything else, theres mastercard
And grief counseling my arse, I just got a free anger management session
|
|
|
Frankinator
E-Thugz
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 17:34:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Akiba Penrose
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Some of the rest of you seem to be content with losing your 32" plasma flatscreen tv that you worked hard for and some of you seem content with being injured/maimed/killed/****d by some one in your home who isn't supposed to be there. Maybe I should become a burglar since we have so many who are so willing to roll over and let it happen. As for me though, I've got a personal arsenal of around a dozen guns and if the locks on my doors don't deter them, if a barking dog doesn't deter them, then they will meet the business end of a AK-47 and I will not stop to ask them a questionnare about their state of mind or their use of force. Criminals will not think twice about the crime.
Killing eachother with AK-47 over 32" plasma flatscreens now are we?
Tick tock, tick tock.
In his defense Akiba, you are kinda taking his statement out of context. Im sure if he knew someone was coming specifically for his shiny new 32' plasma (stop spending all your money on cool pants and AKs and get a bigger TV Michael ) he would just hide the TV or something. But yea, I own 2 hunting rifles and a shotgun which I inherited from my grandfather. And if anyone came into my home, I would stop at no means to protect myself and my family, its simple as that.
|
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 17:41:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Tarminic
That's an easy decision for you to make, because someone interested in robbing your house would have made their intentions much more clear by intentionally bypassing the various other means you have of dissuading people from entering your home.
But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home?
Turn on the front porch light (first deterrant)
And if he doesn't run away, shoot him? 
Quote:
Originally by: Tarminic
Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?
They make locking mailboxes (First deterrant). you can also go to your post office and attain a P.O. Box (even better)
So what if you don't do that and he's stealing your mail? Shoot him or not?
----------------
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 18:38:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Micheal Dietrich on 23/07/2008 18:40:15
Originally by: Tarminic
But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home?
Turn on the front porch light (first deterrant)
And if he doesn't run away, shoot him?
What if what if what if. It's the same old what if game and we can go on forever with this. There are millions of possibilities and millions of outcomes.
So theres a man in your yard and porch lights haven't scared him off. He technically hasn't commited a crime yet aside from trespassing. Does the homeowner have a phone or are we going to 'what if' that out. If a porch light is on and he doesn't leave but he hasn't done anything then I'm sure a squad car will make him change his mind.
Originally by: Tarminic
Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?
They make locking mailboxes (First deterrant). you can also go to your post office and attain a P.O. Box (even better)
So what if you don't do that and he's stealing your mail? Shoot him or not?
So by not protecting your assets you set yourself up to be a victim.
Come on lets try to be realistic. You have a description of the guy, your in a city where police are present.
Anymore more what if's you wanna send over or do you want to assume every situation calls for a trigger happy maniac moment.
|
Mohia Matara
The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 19:05:00 -
[104]
Getting a headshot with an enforcer is easy.
___________________
I'm annoying |
Slanty McGarglefist
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 19:11:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Slanty McGarglefist on 23/07/2008 19:15:46
It's a shame what happened, but this individual had it coming.
__________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
No
Doh! |
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 19:22:00 -
[106]
The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.
----------------
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Mazzarins Demise
Profit Development and Research Association
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 19:28:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Tarminic
The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.
I'd say a visible weapon such as a knife or gun. I don't think I'd shoot and ask questions later though. I would attempt to goad the individual to surrender while I have the firearm pointed at him. If he continues to be abrasive and does not surrender or attempts to withdraw a concealed weapon, I will shoot him in either the leg or arm. That's what I'd hope I do anyway. Rage, adrenaline and fear make a powerful and dangerous combination when you feel these feelings while holding a gun.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 19:39:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Mazzarins Demise
Originally by: Tarminic
The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.
I'd say a visible weapon such as a knife or gun. I don't think I'd shoot and ask questions later though. I would attempt to goad the individual to surrender while I have the firearm pointed at him. If he continues to be abrasive and does not surrender or attempts to withdraw a concealed weapon, I will shoot him in either the leg or arm. That's what I'd hope I do anyway. Rage, adrenaline and fear make a powerful and dangerous combination when you feel these feelings while holding a gun.
Storming into the room shining the gun mounted flashlight in the perps face while yelling "GET DOWN!" multiple times is great for getting attention.
however one thing I should point out is the shooting of the leg or arm. In wepaon training courses you are instructed (like officers of the law) to aim for the torso.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 19:45:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Tarminic
The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.
Why didn't you just say so?
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally -- e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to Retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the shootings. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the shooter, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a shooting fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/shooter) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a shooter acting lawfully.
The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the shooter fired on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who fires in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the shooting.
|
Akiba Penrose
The Movement
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 19:56:00 -
[110]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
|
|
|
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 19:59:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Tarminic
The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.
Why didn't you just say so?
Er...not sure actually. I think that I was thinking it but hadn't actually put it together in my head.
The castle doctrine seems pretty reasonable, in all honesty. The reason I disagree with the principle of the shooting is because I don't think that the thief, in the situation described in the article, was an immediate threat that required the use of deadly force to neutralize.
What the homeowner should have done, in principle, was just say something along the lines of "another step and I blow your brains out" and point the gun at him. All things considered, though, he was woken up by someone breaking into his home and was probably pumped full of adrenaline, and he didn't realize that he shot a juvenile until after the fact (not that it matters really).
Like I said before, the real problem isn't that the homeowner shot the guy. The problem is that if someone wants to defend their property, there's no alternative to real guns that's just as effective at disabling someone without significantly harming or killing them.
----------------
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 20:08:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Mazzarins Demise
I will shoot him in either the leg or arm.
Doesn't usually work like that.
Fortunately, center-of-mass shots aren't automatically fatal, even if you're packing hollowpoints. Of course, for all the humanity one may wish to show in the defense of their own life...it's crazy what can happen in a civil court if the "badguy" lives.
It's all a bit of a mess. Somebody earlier said they think it's crazy that a person who kills another person may not be legally held responsible...I think it's crazy that if you legitimately use lethal or near-lethal force in the self-defense against a would-be criminal, you could end up paying damages to that criminal.
|
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 20:13:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Garreck
Originally by: Mazzarins Demise
I will shoot him in either the leg or arm.
Doesn't usually work like that.
Fortunately, center-of-mass shots aren't automatically fatal, even if you're packing hollowpoints. Of course, for all the humanity one may wish to show in the defense of their own life...it's crazy what can happen in a civil court if the "badguy" lives.
It's all a bit of a mess. Somebody earlier said they think it's crazy that a person who kills another person may not be legally held responsible...I think it's crazy that if you legitimately use lethal or near-lethal force in the self-defense against a would-be criminal, you could end up paying damages to that criminal.
I think that most of the disagreement comes from what different people consider legitimate.
----------------
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 20:56:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Tarminic
I think that most of the disagreement comes from what different people consider legitimate.
You'll find most use of force court rulings will utilize the phrases "totality of circumstances" and "from the perspective of a reasonable person." I suppose that could be more specific, but it's certainly UNreasonable to shoot at someone trying to break into your mailbox, and certainly much more reasonable to feel threat to life and limb when awakened to the sound of someone breaking into your house.
|
Fink Angel
Caldari
The Merry Men
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 21:06:00 -
[115]
In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.
|
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 21:08:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Fink Angel
In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.
I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush. 
----------------
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Fink Angel
Caldari
The Merry Men
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 21:16:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Fink Angel on 23/07/2008 21:15:56
Many years ago , one summer, in my youth, I was pretty drunk and went back to a friend's shared house. He wasn't in, but I went around the back and the door was open because of the heat, so I let myself in.
Another flatmate was in who didn't know me and hid, because he thought I was breaking in. I wandered around for a bit looking for my mate, probably opening all the doors in the house, then left.
My mate came back from the pub a bit later and all was explained, but they weren't desperately impressed by me in the house.
Luckily they never shot first and asked questions later, eh?
|
Zephyr Rengate
dearg doom
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 21:17:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Fink Angel
In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.
I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.
Surprise sex?
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
I will not liek human meat but the naerest I tried is human chesse. I don't want to tried again ...
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 21:33:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate
Originally by: Tarminic
I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.
Surprise sex?
fix'd
|
Arvald
Caldari
Ninjas N Pirates
Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 21:37:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Fink Angel
In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.
I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.
hahaha the mental picture of you leaping from the top of the stairs in your underwear right on top of someone
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |