5,911 Forum Posts by "Jimsween"
At 4/6/04 06:10 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 4/5/04 08:48 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: And as I've already proven, just because they have that one bad feature, doesn't mean they aren't safe. In fact, the statistics would show that these new ones are some of the safest weapons out there.Jim, a poor colour scheme is a bad feature. Exploding and killing many children that pick them up is what we call a VERY bad feature. Let's use our comming snese here.
OOOooooohhhh a VERY bad feature, you seem to be doing alot of word nitpicking lately. Every weapon has a bad, or very bad feature.
Statistics on cluster bombs from Kosovo, the Gulf War, US military trials, the Vietnam War and the UK government’s own figures from the Falklands conflict, indicate that between nine and 30 per cent of the bomblets fail to explode on impact. [Source]
"Cluster bomb" is a very vauge term, there are hundreds of types of cluster bombs, you are only referring to very few of them. Many guns in the past shot when pressure was applied to a certain part, does that mean that all guns are unsafe?
Live and dangerous British-made cluster bombs contain I47 smaller bomblets or sub-munitions, [Source]
That would depend on the cluster bomb, yet again.
Do the math. If they're using the same cluster bomb. It'll have aroundabout 150 clusters. If 10% of these fail to explode, there's 15 tiny bombs sitting on the floor waiting to explode. 15 inquisitive children...
If they are using the same submunition it would have 150 clusters and the submunition has little to do with the dud rate, the dispenser does, and more likely than not they are not using the same dispenser, which is what controls the dud rate.
Care to make a post that actually adresses the facts I've already shown? Or do you just wanna stick with that whole lalalala I can't hear you angle?
You err... kinda had to read the interesting information. I hoped you'd go and ave a look at the sites, and have a dekko over that paraghaph I pasted.
I've read your information, however, your information does very little to prove your point, because you keep making the assumption that only one type of cluster bomb exists. You're falling into a very annoying and ironic pattern, you should not have to play off of redskunk's post to be able to prove your point.
At 4/5/04 10:23 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote:At 4/5/04 08:49 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:Sometimes you're just on the failing side of the argument.At 4/5/04 06:22 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: Sween, you're always arguing with someone just for the sake of arguing...it makes me cry inside.Is there ever a better reason to argue?
If I am then feel free to give an argument as to why I am. But I might remind you, everyone looks wrong when they aren't given a chance to rebut.
At 4/5/04 10:38 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:At 4/5/04 08:49 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:There's a difference between arguing and bickering. You're starting to argue less, and bicker more. You used to be so smart and good at argument. This puberty thing must be really hitting you hard Jim, you even changed your name. My advice to you is to focus less on being right, and more on becoming right. You're not always going to be on the right side of the argument, it's part of growing up.
But if you don't focus on being right, nobody learns anything. It would have been easy for me to just take Redskunk's word for it, and assume that he knew what he was talking about, but because I wanted to prove I was right, I did research, and found that he was misinformed. If anything, not wanting to prove you are right is worse for everyone, because then we all go about being ignorant.
There is no definite way to know if you are right or wrong, without knowing all the facts, so to go one way or the other without even attempting to find the facts, defeats the purpose of debate. Not every view that is popular is right either.
I'm going to start off by clearing up a confusion you must have. You are talking about the submunitions, not the dispensers, there are only a few types of submunitions, and the submunitions have really very little to do with safety, unless you put a fuse on them or something. The dispensers are what determine if the bomb is a dud or not, there are hundreds of types of dispensers, so all in all, you're entire post was pretty muched based around an incorrect idea of yours.
At 4/5/04 10:13 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:At 4/5/04 09:03 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Yes there is, you have not given proof of such.No, I've given plenty of proof.
No, you haven't, you gave some articles talking about submunitions (as if they are the cluster bomb itself), and an article that doesn't exist.
Not the old kind, an old kind.Two types.
Hundreds;
CBU-2
CBU-3
CBU-7
CBU-34/42
CBU-59 Rockeye-II APAM
CBU-75 Sadeye
CBU-78 Gator
CBU-87 CEM
CBU-89 Gator
CBU-94 "blackout"
CBU-97 SFW
CBU-99
CBU-100
MK20 Rockeye
DAACM
Just to name a few.
Where did it say that the one's launched from the artillery were only one kind? Thats highly unlikely considering there are more than 100 different kinds of cluster bombs.They use two kinds.
Hundreds, you shouldn't base your argument around one fact, that you aren't even sure applies to the situation.
There isn't just one old kind, there are several hundred.The US only uses three kinds, one of which is dropped from planes.
No, they use hundreds, and one of the types of submunitions has a timer, making it even more safe.
Certain types are safe.No, bombs aren't safe. Don't be silly.
Safer than most other weapons.
I've given an argument for that, you haven't rebutted my argument.Arguing that bombs are safe is kind of dumb, hmm?
Do you have a safer weapon in mind, because this one certainly has the best track record. The gun is less safe, so is the rocket, and the projectile. The only safer possible step is to go in and do melee combat, but thats just stupid.
The key word there is can. If your going to claim that they are dangerous because they blow up later, give some statistics that support that claim, like ones that say a large percent of cluster bombs in Iraq were duds. And words like "alot" and "many" are not objective.Here.. Wait a second... It's coming.
You're assuming that only one type of dispenser is ever used, which is simply incorrect. Sorry try again.
Not if it's a shotgun shell.Spent shotgun shells aren't as explosive as a bomblet.
But you're going to have much much much more shotgun shells littered around, so the quantity will make up for the small power of it.
RedSkunk's Lesson To Sweeny Pie
I had already had all of this written up, and then IE crashed. Mother. Fucker. Expect this to be one of my last responses in this topic, because you refuse to listen anyways.
Same thing happened to me, three times, don't bitch about it. And it would seem as if you're the one refusing to listen, because you just keep coming up with things that aren't proving anything.
During the recent conflict, the U.S. military used at least three kinds of cluster bombs. The most common are the BLU-97—containing yellow canisters about the size of soda cans—and the KB-1, which is about the size of a hand grenade. The third, a new type, is called the BLU-108. Its bomblets are puck-shaped and are much more powerful than the BLU-97’s. They are designed to seek out heavily armored targets
[source]
So we've got the BLU-97, the KB-1, and the BLU-108.
The BLU-108 is dropped from planes, has the wings, and is suppose to detonate after a period of time. Who knows if they do though? There aren't suppose to be any duds, right? Irregardless, I won't be talking about the BLU-108
The Blue-108 is in a dispenser with wings, and then upon impact, if it does not explode, is supposed to explode after a given amount of time.
Combined Effects Munition CBU-87: dud rates of at least 5 to 7 percent"
Note: each CBU-87 has 202 separate bomblets.
Now you are talking about a certain type of Dispenser, which is what determines the dud-rate. The CBU-87 is a dispenser, it has many brothers and sisters, all varying in effectiveness.
The KB-1 is a Serbian cluster bomb. I do not know what size KB-1's the US is currently using, if we're using the 128mm size, then there are 40 bomblets per carrier. If we're using the 262mm size, then there are 288 bomblets per carrier. Or it could be 120mm or 153mm, which contain 63 bomblets.
[source]
The KB-1 is also a type of submunition. The KB-1 is a bunch of golf ball sized bombs, it doesn't neccesarily have to be in a bomb, it can be in a missile, a shell, anything, but as I stated before, it does not control the dud rate, the dispenser does that.
I do not know how many of each type the army shot. But the total amount of bomblets[...]
I'm just going to pass over this, considering your math was based on the assumption that there was only one type of dispenser.
A word in closing: "unexploded dual-purpose bomblets, such as the American M42 or the Yugoslav KB-1, are far more pressure sensitive than any AP mine." [source]
Which would be a good thing, considering you WANT the bomblets to explode, and not hang around.
At 4/5/04 10:15 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Wow sween, seems like you really changed your old boring and predictable replys....
Wait, no.
*yawn*
Tell me when you write something remotely original and intelligent.
Ironic...
At 4/5/04 04:47 PM, D2KVirus wrote:
Ah, fuck it - this is going on my T-shirt site. After all, it's to priceless to waste by just copying it, putting it in bold, and using it every time Jimsween insults us by hitting "Reply With Quote"...
OMG did you hear what jimsween said, omg omg did you see that. That is so going in my signature, omg I'm going to keep it and save it in a word document so I never ever lose it, wow can you believe he said that, wow.
At 4/5/04 05:18 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:At 4/5/04 03:43 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Which are not the same as the cluster bombsI've already gone over this. The army is still using the old cluster bombs. There's nothing to argue about here.
Yes there is, you have not given proof of such.
you're just blinded by the effect of previous weapons which also happened to be cluster bombs.The bulk of cluster bombs used in this latest war in Iraq were the old kind.
Not the old kind, an old kind.
Throwing out random insults isn't going to make you right.What? It doesn't work for you?
I like to place my insults in a non-random order.
Do they say how many of them they used? Do they say how old they are? Do they say what this history really was? No.Yes. They do.
"...President Bush declared major combat operations over, that the United States had used 1,500 cluster weapons and caused one civilian casualty. It turns out he was referring only to cluster weapons dropped from the air, not those fired by U.S. ground forces.
In fact, the United States used 10,782 cluster weapons, according to the declassified executive summary of a report compiled by U.S. Central Command, which oversaw military operations in Iraq."
Thus, the US fired more than 9000 of the type of clusterbomb that the US army uses.
Where did it say that the one's launched from the artillery were only one kind? Thats highly unlikely considering there are more than 100 different kinds of cluster bombs.
And remember what kind they use? The old kind.
There isn't just one old kind, there are several hundred.
It makes no difference, unless the amount was 10x that, it is still a very safe weapon.You're just being silly saying that clusterbombs are safe.
Stop being silly sween.
Certain types are safe.
And again, you don't have a figure for how many Iraqi's died. And any figure I give you will simply be an estimate but it will still side with my argument.Of course any figure given is an estimate, and I suspect, any figure you give a total fabrication, but regardless.. It's pretty obvious we're dealing with estimates here.
The BBC (in an article saying the US caused needless civilian deaths) estimates 1000, which would still mean that the cluster bombs used are one of the safest weapons out there. Even those high preciscion missiles we used had a higher civilian hit rate.
But there isn't, so you have no grounds for an argument.You're the one with no grounds for an argument. You're the one calling clusterbombs safe.
I've given an argument for that, you haven't rebutted my argument.
No, you must of misread. See - the bomblets remain a threat, because many are duds upon the first impact. But see, now here's the important part - they can blow up later.• Unexploded U.S. cluster bomblets remain a threat to U.S. forces in Iraq. They have killed or injured at least eight U.S. troops.OMG 8!!! Stray bullets are a bigger threat that cluster bombs. Nearly everything is.
The key word there is can. If your going to claim that they are dangerous because they blow up later, give some statistics that support that claim, like ones that say a large percent of cluster bombs in Iraq were duds. And words like "alot" and "many" are not objective.
See, if you leave a bullet on the ground, the worst that could happen, is a child could throw it at another child, and hit their eye with it.
Not if it's a shotgun shell.
But the bomblets blow up if a kid picks one up. See? See?
And this is supposed to mean the weapon is horrible? It's one downside, but obviously it's not a great one, because not alot of people died from that, that is, not enough to make the weapon more unsafe than any other weapon.
At 4/5/04 06:22 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: Sween, you're always arguing with someone just for the sake of arguing...it makes me cry inside.
Is there ever a better reason to argue?
At 4/5/04 04:52 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 4/5/04 03:47 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Gurgled? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? And yes it makes a difference, it's two different wars, and different circumstances, and most importantly, the subject at hand was whether or not America tries toreduce civilian casualties.Gurgling is when kids make that little "Goo" noise that makes them seem really sweet. America evedently DIDNT try to reduce civilian casualties, proved because they dropped cluster bombs, which are notorious for not all exploding properly, and for killing inquisitive people, but mainly children, who play with the bits that have dropped and not exploded yet.
And as I've already proven, just because they have that one bad feature, doesn't mean they aren't safe. In fact, the statistics would show that these new ones are some of the safest weapons out there.
No it doesn't. You're a moron. I've already proven that the ones we used in Iraq were much safer than the ones used in previous wars that caused so many deaths. Unless you can prove otherwise, you shouldn't make claims like that, because they are incorrect.a quick google search for 'cluster bombs iraq' revelas some interesting information.
Care to make a post that actually adresses the facts I've already shown? Or do you just wanna stick with that whole lalalala I can't hear you angle?
At 4/5/04 05:13 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: This is one of those moments that just shout >PWND!!1111!!!<
Is this poppy's attempt at letting out his frustration at me destroying his thread? Jumping in at some random insult which you probably didn't even read and tagging along? I bet you felt really big there up until now.
At 4/5/04 04:45 PM, D2KVirus wrote:
Isn't your narrow, railroaded, pricky little bitch brain aware that I have, actually, given you the rebuttal that you BEG for? It's just not something you can hope for, and try and whitewash away with the regulation bullshit, so you have to act in your usual, pic-ignorant manner?
blah blah blah.
Besides, does this count as a rebuttal:
"That's some post you got there, doesn't seem to be saying anything in particular though....
"?
No? Well then, it appears that you are your usual self. Or, as most people call it, a fucking moron.
Haha, you didn't notice that was a joke? Funk didn't post anything on purpose. Way to make yourself look like an ass, bravo.
Heh, well I can't say I don't find that funny.
At 4/5/04 09:56 AM, D2KVirus wrote:At 4/4/04 03:40 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:I'll just save this one for my records, next time Jimmy thinks somebody other than himself is being an ass...At 4/4/04 02:32 PM, CrassClock wrote:Bombs go boom.No.
Oh boo hoo, j00 make me cry.
At 4/5/04 09:53 AM, D2KVirus wrote:At 4/3/04 12:18 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:I told you before, and I'll tell you again: I treat you with the contempt that you earned. And silly little comments like that remind me how you earned it.
Do you actually have a rebuttal or are you just going to keep makingyourself look like an ass?
I'm still waiting for a rebuttal, I'm starting to wonder if you can even make a post without just copying parts of a newspaper.
At 4/4/04 08:19 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote:
You're kidding. nearly impossible to not have a point when trying to disprove another person's point is? If the entire point of Debate for everyone to come out knowing more thAn they came in with is, then I'll be very surprised. God has desiGned the world according to his own plan.
That's some post you got there, doesn't seem to be saying anything in particular though....
At 4/5/04 04:31 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 4/4/04 03:05 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:Were you? I'd diverged. Does it really make a difference that an Afghanistani Child picked up a bit of bomb and gurgled in a happy manner before it detonated and killed him?At 4/4/04 07:36 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Afghanistani children, you mean.No, Iraqi children, we're talking about IRAQ.
Gurgled? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? And yes it makes a difference, it's two different wars, and different circumstances, and most importantly, the subject at hand was whether or not America tries toreduce civilian casualties.
Somehow I think not, and either way, Skunk rpoved we used them in iraq to... so tha makes it TWICE as bad...
No it doesn't. You're a moron. I've already proven that the ones we used in Iraq were much safer than the ones used in previous wars that caused so many deaths. Unless you can prove otherwise, you shouldn't make claims like that, because they are incorrect.
At 4/4/04 08:14 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:At 4/4/04 04:07 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Funny that you couldn't find one article that wasn't an editorial, much less one that was written by someone who hadn't made thier position on the war openly clear.I don't really think someone's position on the war has any bearing when speaking about facts.
Fact: We dropped cluster bombs in Iraq in this latest war.
Which are not the same as the cluster bombs
Fact: You denied earlier that we did. Face it - You were simply talking out of your ass.
I admit I was wrong, but that doesn't change my argument. Just because it is a cluster bomb does not mean it is a bad weapon, you're just blinded by the effect of previous weapons which also happened to be cluster bombs. Throwing out random insults isn't going to make you right.
these are actually much safer. Cluster bomb is a general classification, there are many many types, jsut because it's a cluster bomb does not neccesarily mean it is bad.Whoops! You didn't read this part:
"The U.S. Air Force used new, improved cluster bombs in Iraq that pose fewer dangers to civilians. But U.S. ground forces used old cluster munitions with a history of leaving unexploded bomblets (duds) that can detonate any time after they are deployed, causing civilian casualties."
Do they say how many of them they used? Do they say how old they are? Do they say what this history really was? No. For all we know they could have been cluster bombs developed just a few years before those new cluster bombs, and they too could have been safe for civilians. You have no proof to the contrary, and the statistics side with me, so unless you can give evidence to your argument then the evidence favors my argument.
372 civilians were estimated killed by cluster bombs by anti-war groups (obviously a very liberal estimate).Next sentence: "The numbers are impossible to verify: Iraqi hospital records are incomplete, and many Iraqi families buried their dead without reporting their deaths"
Whoops! Funny you should leave that out!
It makes no difference, unless the amount was 10x that, it is still a very safe weapon. If I did give you an article that gave a figure, you would claim it was an estimate, and therefore completely unuseable.
So the ratio of civilian deaths per bomb is less than 1:3, which actually makes it one of the least civilian-lethal bombs out there, even the high preciscion cruise missiles had a 1:3.5 ratio.Whoops! You left out this little tidbit:
"The attacks also left behind thousands of unexploded bomblets, known as duds, that continued to kill and injure Iraqi civilians weeks after the fighting stopped. U.S. officials say they sought to limit civilian casualties by trying to avoid using cluster munitions. But often alternative weapons were not available or would not have been as effective during the invasion.
And again, you don't have a figure for how many Iraqi's died. And any figure I give you will simply be an estimate but it will still side with my argument. There would have to be upwards of 10,000 Iraqi's dead in order for you to really call this weapon unsafe. But there isn't, so you have no grounds for an argument.
• Unexploded U.S. cluster bomblets remain a threat to U.S. forces in Iraq. They have killed or injured at least eight U.S. troops.
OMG 8!!! Stray bullets are a bigger threat that cluster bombs. Nearly everything is.
• The U.S. Air Force, criticized for using cluster bombs that killed civilians during the wars in Vietnam, Kosovo and Afghanistan, has improved its cluster bombs. But U.S. ground forces relied on cluster munitions known to cause a high number of civilian casualties."
Too many subjective words to be used as evidence. An anti-war person would call nearly any amount of civilians high. I'm sure many people consider 372 civilians high.
Thus re-enforcing my claim that the US went to great lengths to reduce civilian deaths.New York-based Human Rights Watch predicted on March 18, a day before the war began with an airstrike in Baghdad: "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will result in grave dangers to civilians and friendly combatants." Cluster weapons are especially dangerous to civilians because they spray wide areas with hundreds of bomblets. Most are unguided "dumb" weapons, so they can miss their target, and many of the bomblets don't explode immediately.
Yeeeaaaaah......
What's this supposed to prove? Every weapon can be made to look bad by simply saying it's possible downsides; A gun hurls a piece of metal with no guidance system whatsoever, it has a long history of killing innocent people, and many guns are able to shoot a constant stream of projectiles, and usually after the third shot, the gun is not pointed anywhere near it's original target.
At 4/4/04 03:59 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote:At 4/4/04 03:27 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: What the hell are you talking about?He's talking about all the perfectly good threads you ruin with your bickering. It's not enough to disprove someone else's point, you have to have one of your own. Which you never do. Ever.
It's nearly impossible to not have a point when trying to disprove another person's point. And isn't the entire point of debate for everyone to come out knowing more than they came in with? Why should having a point matter, if anything not having a point is better, because you aren't biased by anything.
Oh wait, my mistake, the ratio is actually more like 1:30.
And unless there is something I'm forgetting, that would make it the safest weapon in history.
At 4/4/04 03:38 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:At 4/3/04 05:58 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:No, we dropped cluster bombs in Iraq - in the first gulf war, in '98-99 when we were bombing, and in 2003:At 4/3/04 04:04 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: What about all those kids who picked up bits of cluster bomb and then got blown to smithereenes? Is that intentional? Cluster bombs are, in fact, DESIGNED to do this.That was Afghanistan.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/world/gcluster/flash.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-09.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,968181,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-cluster-bomb-cover_x.htm
Funny that you couldn't find one article that wasn't an editorial, much less one that was written by someone who hadn't made thier position on the war openly clear. What you should have been able to see (that is, if you weren't just looking to justify your views on the war) is that these cluster bombs, are not the same cluster bombs that have been so imfamous for killing people, these are actually much safer. Cluster bomb is a general classification, there are many many types, jsut because it's a cluster bomb does not neccesarily mean it is bad. I'll use some simple math to demonstrate;
372 civilians were estimated killed by cluster bombs by anti-war groups (obviously a very liberal estimate).
13,000 cluster bombs were used.
So the ratio of civilian deaths per bomb is less than 1:3, which actually makes it one of the least civilian-lethal bombs out there, even the high preciscion cruise missiles had a 1:3.5 ratio.
Thus re-enforcing my claim that the US went to great lengths to reduce civilian deaths.
At 4/4/04 02:32 PM, CrassClock wrote:
Bombs go boom.
No.
Communism failed because beauracracy is inherantly corrupt and innefficient. Until you fix that, you can't have a system in which everything relies on it.
At 4/4/04 03:21 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:At 4/4/04 03:15 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:Well then, I guessed you proved yourself wrong countless times over.
Wahh waah waaahh.
A good thread can't be ruined.
What the hell are you talking about?
At 4/4/04 03:05 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:At 4/4/04 03:54 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:Perfect example of how you ruin threads sween.
Another thread died...
Wahh waah waaahh.
A good thread can't be ruined.
At 4/4/04 07:36 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 4/4/04 05:13 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote: "The fact that they used Cluster bombs in Afghanistan means that they wanted Iraqi children to die!"Afghanistani children, you mean.
No, Iraqi children, we're talking about IRAQ.
At 4/4/04 04:01 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 4/3/04 06:03 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Oh yeah, and I'm sure they love the UN soooooooo much. Anybody occupying thier country, they will hate, simple as that.The US has bombed Iraq for years and years before the war. The people MIGHT just not like America one teency-weency bit because their families were killed by their bombs. Maybe, just maybe that's the case.
I'd sure like to see your proof of these families being killed by pre-war bombs. And where did I say they like America? I simply said they are not going to like anyone who occupies thier country.
At 4/4/04 03:51 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 4/3/04 05:58 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:Big difference. The fact that the cluster bombs were USED SHOWS that they mst have wanted things like this to happen, otherwise they wouldn't have used it. So therefore, those childrens deaths were intentional, even though the military KNEW they were civilians.What about all those kids who picked up bits of cluster bomb and then got blown to smithereenes? Is that intentional? Cluster bombs are, in fact, DESIGNED to do this.That was Afghanistan.
No, those were two different wars. You are comparing apples in Bananas. In the Iraq war we used preciscion weaponry because we were targeting heavily populated areas and wanted to reduce civlian deaths, there is no other explianation for it. In the Afghani war we used cluster bombs because we were attacking the desert.
"The fact that they used Cluster bombs in Afghanistan means that they wanted Iraqi children to die!"
At 4/3/04 11:46 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:At 4/3/04 11:39 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Have you ever been shot?Have you ever been covered in napalm?
No but I've had 3rd degree burns on my feet, and it hurts, but it isn't worse than a puncture in your chest by a longshot. And usually when people get Napalmed they die pretty quick, getting shot is another story.
At 4/3/04 11:36 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:At 4/3/04 11:29 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Not really, unless you think everyone who gets shot gets it in the head.I guess we'll just disagree then. Personally I'd rather get shot...
Have you ever been shot?
At 4/3/04 10:59 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Whats worse about burning a man rather than shooting him?It's a longer, more painful, and more brutal way of dieing?
Not really, unless you think everyone who gets shot gets it in the head.
