REALLY, REALLY HOT!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yryV-5TfwvE
Printable View
REALLY, REALLY HOT!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yryV-5TfwvE
Funny and educational. Especially the statue of liberty firing a rifle !Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Wrath
Americans killing each other with guns, is it a sad thing or a good thing, I will let you decide :D
I will never voluntarily live in a country where people carry firearms.
wow ! :bananajum :bananajum :bananajumQuote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Wrath
thanks for sharing !
the girl with the bat was amazing looking.
I'm glad to hear that the violent criminals in your country aren't armed. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mick_sl8ter
But enough with politics: I gotta agree with the chief, that the sword lady is HAWT!
Actually they usually aren't. Here in Toronto, where most of our firearms are from across the American border, there was a gang bust last year in which 120 gang members were arrested. They seized 10 kilos of cocaine, some heroin, some marijuana... and a grand total of 20 firearms, which included a couple AKs. So... 20 guns per 120 gang members. In a city that's right near the American border, with the largest relevant difference being that on this side of the border, there's gun control.Quote:
Originally Posted by bustme2hard
If 120 members of a single gang in your city were arrested, how many guns do you think would be found when their homes are searched? Think gun availability would factor into it at all?
[/politics]
Quote:
Originally Posted by One from the Vaults
Let's measure the ratio of armed criminals to defenseless victims in your country. Also, excluding firearms, what would be your preferred method of defense if the gang with the 20 guns attacked you? Hand-to-hand combat, perchance? Here in the US, armed murderers like to target childrens' schools and colleges (see Virginia Tech Massacre, Columbine, etc.), because they are "gun-free zones". That translates to a free-for-all for any coward with a gun -- he can't get hurt, because he's just mowing down a bunch of soft targets. And that's why school/college shootings swiftly go up and up in body count, before somebody finally manages to be able to incapacitate the killer. And often, it simply ends in suicide, or the killer simply running out of bullets because he didn't expect such luck as no one having a gun. Calling the police during a mass shooting gets the guy with the chalk out there -- statistics show they rarely can show up in time to stop an in-progress shooting, and even when they do, several victims have already been shot to death.
Gun control is good in theory. In real life, it's a different story. Deaths from violent crime are statistically lower where there is limited or no gun control, because the would-be offenders know that they could be picking on the wrong guy or girl at any given time. Again, in theory, gun control makes sense. In real life, it translates to "Guns are for criminals."
I tend to agree with your line of thought, bustme2hard. maybe the "amok runners" who think that slaughtering people like cattle is great fun, would think twice what they are going to do if the "cattle" might return the fire...
now while I have no problem to discuss this topic here (as long as other people dont mind), lets not loose focus of the topic of this thread completely:
http://img160.imagevenue.com/loc790/..._123_790lo.jpg
the artist is David (of Dave ?) Hoover if you want to google for him
Umm... no... this is simply not true. Like, at all. You claim deaths from violent crime are statistically lower... but either you're misinformed, or you're lying, because in fact the opposite is true. Prove me wrong by showing me these supposed statistics -- a quick comparison of, say, Britain, Canada and the US in terms of homicide rate per annum is pretty clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by bustme2hard
Fact is that the more guns are present in a country, the more carrying a gun becomes essential. In places with less guns, criminals don't even need to carry weapons, and if they do, the likelihood of someone fighting back are reduced, so nobody ends up getting shot. In places where everyone has guns, people tend to shoot first and ask questions later.
Also, it's fallacious to assume that all gun violence is perpetrated by "criminals" who would be willing and able to obtain guns illegally. Most crime is actually committed by normal people in abnormal situations. Picture a violent confrontation taking place at a bar, maybe over a sports game. Here in Canada, somebody will probably get hit with a chair and maybe break a rib or two... in the US, somebody will probably get shot. Similarly, the presense of a weapon in the household causes rate of spousal homicide to skyrocket.
Think of it this way: if a woman gets really mad at you, would you rather she lash out by kicking you in the balls, or by shooting you?
and... if a gang large enough to have 20 guns attacked me, I'd run the fuck away. And so would anybody who doesn't have a death wish, gun or no gun.
Of course not, you grab your machine gun and try to take out as many as possible, because that is the right thing to do. Havent you seen Rambo I , II or III ? :D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by One from the Vaults
I personally like shooting firearms. And I think a sexy woman who holds a deathly weapon is even more sexy. But seriously I am very glad people are not allowed to have firearms here, because I know quite some people who would probably want to shoot me if they had a gun :machine:
But they dont have the balls to fight me :D
If that's true, why does Canada have a lower murder rate than the US? Ditto for the UK, and in both countries, there are stringent gun control laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by bustme2hard
Note that in the order of countries with the highest murder rates, Canada comes in 44th, while the UK is 46th. We (Canada) have fewer gun restrictions than do the British). The US is 24th.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita
Rebecca
I once enjoyed this forum, but it is not so much now. Too many members want to inject their politics and mood of superiority here. It is not only very annoying, but rude and borish.
Evident there is no moderation in these forums. Every thread is becoming a "Free-for-All."
Spam! Spam! Spam!
Isn't this supposed to be a forum about ballbusting, not politics?
I'd rather spend my time in this forum on ballbusting.
I'm going to try hard to stay out of political discussions, but I must ask "One from the vaults," didn't you just imply that it is better to be a victim or ****, brutality, or murder rather than someone uses arms to defend him/herself.
Anyway, I'm going to try to escape these lofty and etherial political threads, and stick to more pleasant and less acrimonious subjects. You Canucks are far too strident and draconian for my thinking about the need to be nice to everyone, no matter how evil and murderous they might be.
Lascivious ballbusting I can take; murder is another matter
poolman2
OK, lets try to get it back on track:
http://img222.imagevenue.com/loc409/..._123_409lo.jpg
Now that is one hot pic. Imagine her aiming at a guys balls, while he is taking a piss out in nature, not knowing on who's land he is pissing :D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by ChiefSoreballs