 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) One should intervene if it is the right thing to do, irrespective of what the outcome may be(1). To say otherwise, suggests you would only use your gun to defend against "tyranny" if you thought you'd win. How weak is that? Scott A I shall (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) It wasn't a bad film--it would have been a bad history text, if it had aspired to be a history text at all. As a piece of fiction, it was quite effective. Now The Patriot--*that* was a bad film. Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) It depends on how you define win. There isn't any point in dying for nothing. There are situations in which dying is worthwhile. But not when it's just pointless. If you could defend person X from a wrong, but would be killed, or you could go (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Well, for a start, if he really was a 'patriot', he'd have been on our side! (or Native American) You can't be a patriot if you don't have a country yet. Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Idunno, a film that actually admitted that a cannon shot essentially an iron bowling ball can't be all bad... Bruce (okay, so I skip the over-wrought story on the DVD player) :-) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
