Page 2 of 2

Re: Are guns really used for self defense?

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:17 am
by Medic624
Excaliber wrote: What's often missed in a discussion of this type is that in a violent criminal attack, there are only two roles: predator and prey. There is no third role.

The intended prey either becomes the dominant predator himself, or he ends up as food.

Food does not get to reproduce.
UNLESS... You're a Male Black Widow ... Then you ARE a meal AND you get to reproduce... "rlol" ;-) "rlol"

Re: Are guns really used for self defense?

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:30 am
by sjfcontrol
Excaliber wrote: Food does not get to reproduce.

Apparently, you've never checked out the refrigerator at the place I used to work! :biggrinjester:

Re: Are guns really used for self defense?

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:32 am
by Purplehood
sjfcontrol wrote:
Excaliber wrote: From a darwinian standpoint,it should be obvious that any animal that fails to protect itself, its mate and its young is not well positioned to be fruitful and multiply. Nature will take its course when an unsuccessful solution is applied during a predatory attack, and the "less evolved" predator will be the one to procreate.
Excaliber: It that's the case, then why haven't the liberals died out? Seems like there's more of them now than ever. Not saying you're wrong, but imperial evidence suggests otherwise! :cheers2:
"Imperial evidence". I like that one!

Re: Are guns really used for self defense?

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:42 am
by sjfcontrol
Purplehood wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:
Excaliber wrote: From a darwinian standpoint,it should be obvious that any animal that fails to protect itself, its mate and its young is not well positioned to be fruitful and multiply. Nature will take its course when an unsuccessful solution is applied during a predatory attack, and the "less evolved" predator will be the one to procreate.
Excaliber: It that's the case, then why haven't the liberals died out? Seems like there's more of them now than ever. Not saying you're wrong, but imperial evidence suggests otherwise! :cheers2:
"Imperial evidence". I like that one!
It was supposed to be "empirical", but the spell-checker "fixed" it. (But I kiinda like imperial, too! :lol: )
em·pir·i·cal   
[em-pir-i-kuhl]
–adjective
1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
.
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it! :evil2:

Re: Are guns really used for self defense?

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:43 am
by Excaliber
Medic624 wrote:
Excaliber wrote: What's often missed in a discussion of this type is that in a violent criminal attack, there are only two roles: predator and prey. There is no third role.

The intended prey either becomes the dominant predator himself, or he ends up as food.

Food does not get to reproduce.
UNLESS... You're a Male Black Widow ... Then you ARE a meal AND you get to reproduce... "rlol" ;-) "rlol"
True - just not in that order. :lol:

Re: Are guns really used for self defense?

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:46 am
by Excaliber
sjfcontrol wrote:
Excaliber wrote: Food does not get to reproduce.

Apparently, you've never checked out the refrigerator at the place I used to work! :biggrinjester:
Unless leaving a sandwich in that refrigerator gave you lots of little sandwiches, what was reproducing was whatever was feeding on the food you were storing - although I don't it's technically correct to call flora and fungi predators..... :lol: