THIS is why we have the Second Amendment

A service rifle.

Well, they APPEAR to be M-16s - meaning they're just like M-16s in appearance.

A more WF-approved[tm] source?



Not surprisingly, the fact that this woman killed the intruder with a shotgun will now be buried under the of discussing the fine points of your respective arsenals...

*double

So, a shotgun is innately less evil (when killing someone) than an [-]assault rifle[/-] M16?

Are you suggesting it was "evil" for this woman to defend herself and her baby?

Sorry to disappoint.

It's the same logic that lets them judge everything after the fact as good or bad, right or wrong.

This was a young woman, protecting herself and her baby. Obviously OK.

If it were posted as a generic question of a homeowner's right to defend themselves with deadly force, I'm sure the support would've been much more equivocal.

Not at all. I'm not suggesting anything. Without qualification, or equivocation on the particular weapon used, I'm saying she was exercising her guaranteed rights.

The question was reflecting the little passive aggressive, DD&B dance you do whenever firearms are being discussed.

So...not able to answer that question?

Well, there you go.

Thought so.

Yes, your cut-and-paste skills are adequate. Your expectation that I will answer your passive-aggressive questions just because you feel like posting for a change is, however, disproportionate.

Now the question becomes, do you have the ability to ask a non-passive-aggressive question? If so, please do, and it will be answered. If not, go back to doing what you do best.

I don't know about him, but I call mine "Vera."

Asked and answered...

"I refuse because I don't like your tone" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.

Because we know how you go out of your way to answer everyone who's snotty to you.

Actually, those sorts of people usually get first pick. You should know.

Okay, then, you answer Jamey Dear. Because now that he's proven he's incapable of asking a non-passive-aggressive question, I consider him dismissed.

Watch what he does now.

Skin's had a big ol' stiffy for the Kel-Tec KSG ever since he saw it.

(A) Fiction belongs in the Workshop

and

(B) Dialogue arises from characterization. Yours need work.

Looks like UA just "garameted" you. Now tell Skin, how does it feel?

You want my own answer? People who attribute human motives to inanimate objects are fucking idiots. Neither is more evil than the other.

That wasn't as much fun, now was it?

Since neither Post #54 nor Post #55 have any more bearing on my posts in this thread than Whistleboy's nonsense, they're entertaining as grace notes to the previously-established characters you two play on the Internets, but not overly.

You need to do a post in the Workshop expanding on "B." I am intrigued.

Cliff Notes: Your characters have to sound like themselves. The reader should be able to say "That's Lanzman" and "That's garamet" even without the he said/she said.

Paladin's very good at capturing the "voices" of other posters here. And a lot of people are getting very good at parodying skinofevil because, well, fuck you, that's why!

I'd like to think my "voice" here is pretty bland and not idiosyncratic enough to easily imitate. But we should discuss this elsewhere . . .

Only skinofevil parodies skinofevil! Why? Because fuck you, that's why!