Silkroad Online Forums

1]@bold, we have more people and that is irrelevant.
2]@Underlined, don't straw man my argument.
3]@Italics, point?

My Point: Banning guns won't stop them from getting into your country just like banning certain herbal materials won't stop their use. It gives those who can obtain them reassurance. They know they have power and can't be stopped by an average citizen, they are now one notch above the rest. If a bad man has the means to obtain Fire Arms, they will get them and they will use them.

My point is exactly what I said.

Most statistics are done per 100,000 people as I previously stated.

Sure all guns aren't going to be prevented from entering the country, they get hidden in shipping containers etc.

You can legally own a pistol if you have a license, Is pistol not enough reassurance? Or do people need a M16 to protect themselves?

You can only fight back to people with equal force, therefor being able to shoot someone is basically irrelevant anyway.

@Bold, sure a pistol works but it never hurts to have a 12 gauge when someone tries to rob your store with their handy dandy M16.

The Point is Gun Crimes have and do increase. Saying the USA has more Gun Crimes doesn't change the rise of their occurrence in your own country.

@"equal force", because someone will try to attack you unarmed.

I don't know the logic behind, "more gun more safe"

Its all about dick. Yes i said it, dick! Men think that their dick is always bigger
than another man's dick, so he need to have guns to show it, with a big SUV that carries
a huge V8 that carry only one person around town, wasting all that gas. Yes, its all
about who has a bigger dick. I rather have a smaller one than have children get killed
by school shooter every year. America, home of the cowboys (and DICK)

Well, I must ask. Is it bliss?

@.@ intereesting ...
here there is up to 24mb connections .. but that costs earth ..
normally people get like 3 mb connection and share it .. u get bout 200kb/sec dl .. is pretty nice and cheap

^ capless. where i live, i drain internet from the university.
download speed varies from 70.000 to 77.500
upload speed varies from 40.000 to 47.500
it only gets a tad slower when internet traffic is high i guess.

anyhow, i <33 it

That's all nice and dandy Cin, but let's see how low of a ping you can get...

because believe it or not, DL/UL does not determine ping directly, or how well you perform in games

I'm confused. Depression, Connection Speed Pee-Pee size, Gun Law? Why do we forget EMO? Emo has feeling too.

Regarding Gun Law and use of force, the above statement is a myth. In the United States there are at least three (3) standards by which a person's use of force will be judged to determine whether it was 'reasonable'. To discuss each in depth and how they differ would mean writing a book but in a nutshell, here you go:

1. The Objective Standard
   In essence, the objective standard asks: Would a reasonable person believe that the attacker in their particular case intended to kill or do great bodily harm? If the facts of the case substantiate this belief, then the person claiming self-defense will be justified in doing what was done to repel the attack.
2. The Subjective Standard
   The subjective standard asks the jury to look into the mind of the victim as opposed to a fictional 'reasonable prudent man'. The question becomes: Were the circumstances sufficient, in the mind of this person, to make him / her honestly and reasonably believe they had to use the force they chose to protect themselves from imminent harm?
3. The Discretion of the Jury Standard
   In a nutshell this standard simply requires the jury to determine, from all the facts, whethere or not the use of force was necessary to avoid serious bodily injury or death.

The belief that one is limited to the use of equal force is simply untrue. Consider if you were on a jury and were required to determine whether a grandpa who responded to a gang violence situation were justified in his use of lethal force. Well, maybe not this particular grandpa, make that a poor, innocent victim of your choice.

In point of fact, and in the United States, it is generally lawful to defend oneself with sufficient force to not only repel any attack, but also to stave off further attack. Hopefully you have witnesses and remember to say, "I'm sooooo afraid," as you strike back with wide-eyed horror.

Oh, one last thought - don't chase them. If the attacker is running away, so is your claim of fear.

Grandpa - first of all I want to apologize for my comment to you earlier. I have gained a new-found respect for your posts. I'm probably one of the few who understands them all, but it's nice to have an intelligent father figure in these forums.

Okay, Truce it is. You don't know me well enough to like me. I do appreciate the apology though.

I never suggested I knew you, only that I respect your posts.

Who knows? As long as I am no longer a 17 year old plagiarist who lives in his mother's basement, I might even listen to some Trance Music. I do have eclectic tastes.

Hehe, again, my apologies, I was not in the right mind for accusing you of such.

Grandpa, Quite an intriguing post you wrote before.

You're right, emo does have feeling!

And we got onto gun laws somehow - Can't be bothered going back a page.

Australia and the United States of America have different laws. There's been many cases in Australia where people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for using what's considered 'greater than equal force' - ie. I punch you, and you kick me back. In that scenario your kick is of greater force than my punch.

There once was a case which a female security guard was bashed and left for dead in a carpark by a man. The man then stole a car and attempted to drive away, the woman (as he was exiting the carpark) grabbed her gun and shot the man, the very man who tried to kill her. She killed the man and was later charged with murder, the intention to kill. Her force was greater than his because she used a gun. The judge also said that she had time to basically calm down and not have to kill the man, and therefore helped his ruling of murder.

There's been a few cases like this in Australia, and some judges in Australia are pretty fvcked up.

You've got to be kidding me. What if an 87 year old woman responded to a 260 lb. (I don't know metric sry) attacker by kicking him in the nards when he threatened to strike her after stealing her purse.

She was frail and thought about 'equal force' but feared to shatter her hand against his jaw so she opted to the nut-strike. Are you saying that Australian 'equal force' laws prohibit common sense? Honestly I doubt this.

They may take it easier on older ladies, but as I said. Australian law is pretty screwed up some times. Pedophiles get let out into innocent neighborhoods - 5 men get let off after raping a 10 year old girl. It fails people, but some things in the U.S law are pretty screwed up too. Not everything is going to go the way of which you would like.

I wouldn't know what would 'really' happen to the 87 year old frail woman until it happens - but when it does happen, hopefully the law will be fixed and people are allowed to defend them selves using greater force. Though going to the extremity of having to use a gun on someone, with the intention to kill isn't right. I'm glad Australia doesn't have the 'Right to bear arms' laws.

damn, porn in less than 10 seconds

But he's getting kicked from 90% of game servers with that ping.

Wow did i stir up something fun, what a good debate. But i stand by my opinion. Ill be moving to Australia soon, get to hear about all their rules and laws. Shall be fun to laugh at them. But you seriously need to learn to take insults to your country, everyone talks shit about America here, i just laugh at them for it. You cant get so defensive over it. But im tired so idk if any of that made sense

He forgot to mention the "one up" law. I.E., you punch me, I may kick you, but I can't use a bat. You use a bat, I use a pole, but I can't use a gun.

It will also take into account circumstantial evidence. A kick to the 'nads is classified as non-lethal force, especially considering the circumstance.

The Australian ruling is more based on the bearing of arms that have the capability to cause lethal force, such as weapons. It's meant to prevent people from acting over the top in situations, like if someone comes unarmed and goes to harm you, you don't just shoot them because you can. It may sound weird, but it does make a lot of sense.

(random fact for people, having a blackbelt in martial arts is considered equal to having a gun as far as equal force goes)

So If were to get punched and say I happen to have a black belt and I deliver a nice roundhouse kick to my assailant rendering him unconscious, would they throw me in the slammer?

I believe that the blackbelt thing only applies if the force was excessive, and/or deadly. In that case you defended yourself properly, but your assailant could still take you to civil court for assault, in which case you would have to explain your use of force. You would most likely win, but if it was under criminal charges, and he was not armed, you have a good chance of losing.

OH, so they're talking Muy Thai Car Crash Knee Kicks. Hell, I'd sue too.

Yes, that would be excessive unless it were a life or death situation. But when it comes to law, and you're both still alive, it doesn't really matter who's right - what matters is who has the best lawyer.

lol, take insults that are totally untrue? Why would anyone do that? If someone said that USA was made up of 99.99% black people, the white people wouldn't be happy, and would more than likely prove those who said that wrong.

Don't forget when you're coming into Australia, you must declare everything, or you will be stuck in Quarantine for hours =D. Oh and Australians and those who are not natively Australian have to go through two different lines, so if they pull you out of the crowd they'll search your bag. P.S try not to fly into Sydney International Airport, it's the worst airport for that.

so...where can i find nemo?