Sorry—MAD theory is inherently immoral in my mind. Either you're willing to pull the trigger or you're not. If you're not, there's no threat, and MAD breaks down. If you are, you're no better than the killer, even if you kill for the "right reasons".

I'm pretty sure you're basically under the assumption "if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns, and it'll make the world more dangerous". And that would be valid—if it weren't contradicted by every piece of evidence we have. The death-by-gun rate in firearm-outlawed nations, such as the UK, is much less…

You should of course rush to my aid...but if you have the option not to kill him, you shouldn't. Someone raping me at gunpoint is despicable, but it's not worthy of death. Nothing is.

Taser range: 35 feet. That's well across the room and then some. You get one shot, then you can always reload and shoot again. Of course, if you're buying a Taser for protection, you'd learn to handle it well enough not to miss.

Why is that?

Unarmed? Is a Taser not defense? Is pepper spray? Is a stun gun? Hell, if I need to, is a baseball bat to the legs not? And yet, none of those kill.

I get where you're coming from, and to some extent I would agree. The problem is that you don't first buy the gun when you're backed into a corner. You buy it when you're not in danger, and you're not being controlled by adrenaline-induced fight-or-flight instincts. Those instincts would just as easily let you shoot a…

Yes, I would, actually. Gun-vs-gun is just as bad as gun-vs-Taser; it all comes down to who can shoot first. The difference is that if you have a Taser, shooting first doesn't kill the other guy even after disarming/disabling him and saving yourself and/or your family.

Surrendering their right to life...that phrase just doesn't sit well at all with me. I really don't think anything anyone can do is enough to surrender their right to life. Liberty and their pursuit of happiness, maybe; but not to life. Death is too permanent a thing for it to be an acceptable consequence of any…

Congratulations on both the ad hominem and the exaggeration. It really proves your point well. Or not at all, same difference.

The problem is that educating people only works if the people believe what they're taught. And when it comes to things like smoking, the "it's legal, it can't be that bad", "my friends do it and they're fine", etc. takes away from the authority of the education until after they're addicted. And that's not even…

Your intention was to seem ridiculous and insane? Well, then, sir, you win :) Congratulations! Your prize is being ostracized from civilization, with a chance to win a trip to a mental ward.

I think if I'm in a coffin in a tomb, and I'm able to hear the music, my first action would be to get the fuck out because I'm alive and not sit and listen to Paramore!

An untested hypothesis does not a theory make.

Yes. Sure. Because after billions of years of evolution pushing us toward having MORE kids, the one thing that evolved is a detriment to releasing more sperm. That makes sense. /facetiousness

I find you ridiculous, downright embarrassing, and bordering on criminally insane. What now? Your move, Joel.

Dammit. When someone tells me not to do something, I immediately want to do it...and now I'm scarred for months -_- .

Okay, just "porn" gives me cleaned-up results, but narrowing it down with modifiers gives me real porn again. Hm. Weird. Well, at least it's safe from Puritans for now :P .

I get different search results for "porn"...most of which have no nudity, and the ones that do are rare and not so explicit. What country are you in?

Well, that sucks. Actually, no it doesn't. Who uses Google Images for porn anyway? XD