Severed bunny head
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > Not Quite a Miracle on 34th Street (Macy's Shooting)
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:50. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
DoomUK
Forum Staple


Posts: 3845
Registered: 04-04



j4rio said:
Hypothetically, what exactly would be a downside of prohibiting gun usage globally?

Provisionally? It would rob a lot of people of their hobby, sport or occupation.

On a bigger scale and more importantly it would deprive people of a means to defend themselves. Of course there's non-lethal ways of disabling a would-be mugger or rapist or murderer, and I'm all in favour of implementing those instead of the "eye for an eye" approach when possible or plausible. I'll admit it's also a non-issue in countries like the UK where most people simply don't own a gun because the law prohibits them, and they're not prepared to go through illegal channels (for most of us there's probably not even an incentive to own a weapon of any kind for self-defense, unless you live in a particularly rough part of London or Manchester or Glasgow or some other urban area known for being nefarious).


j4rio said:
We don't have the right to stop existence of anybody.

Fundamentally, no. I guess I should make it clear that I don't condone killing people, even in defense.

It's a simplistic and slightly cheesy scenario, but imagine being stuck between a rock and a hard place and having to make the painful decision of killing a psychopath who wants to kill you or someone you love, or killing him: academically, which would you choose?

Old Post 12-12-12 20:55 #
DoomUK is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Phml
Forum Staple


Posts: 3325
Registered: 06-09



Maybe, but I could certainly argue that being able to buy a gun with minimum hassle doesn't automatically turn people into murderers


Nobody said otherwise. The quote you plucked was addressing the idea stricter gun control might have had no effect on even a single school shooting.

Teenager with knife - one professor or kid stabbed every once in a while, hardly any fatalities.
Teenager with gun - school shooting with multiple casualities.

You can argue ifs and buts, try to drown the argument into meaningless absolutes all you want, this is what past history has shown us. Ideals only matter to idealists. Personally, in this context I'm more concerned with the body count.

Not only melee weapons are less efficient ways of killing people, they put you at greater risk and require greater physical ability. This in itself can lead people to have second thoughts. To characterize every single murderer as an on/off switch is just childish reassuring thoughts. They are human beings just like you, with doubt and survival instincts. Most people have the potential to be a murderer. What do you think happens in wars? There's no respawn point in real life.

Last edited by Phml on 12-12-12 at 21:03

Old Post 12-12-12 20:58 #
Phml is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mogul
Senior Member


Posts: 1753
Registered: 01-01



j4rio said:

Why exactly should there be any sort of privilege to own a gun? Hypothetically, what exactly would be a downside of prohibiting gun usage globally? Besides that it would be harder to kill people we don't like, of course.



But the American constitution says we can! And it is inspired by God himself! Of COURSE we should have guns!

Old Post 12-12-12 21:09 #
Mogul is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Aliotroph?
postCount++


Posts: 2641
Registered: 03-02


Guns are like cars: you should have to pass a test, and it should be a hard test. I really wish this was far more true of cars. The requirements to drive in an urban setting should be more like getting a pilot's license.

I do condone killing in self defense. If killing somebody while defending yourself is punishable then most people shouldn't even try to defend themselves. Killing people accidentally is easy to do, and sometimes people are next to impossible to stop without a mortal wound or six.

One thing strict gun control laws do manage to prevent is a large number of accidental deaths. Too many idiots get kids killed by leaving guns where they shouldn't. It seems to be a primarily American problem.

Old Post 12-12-12 21:23 #
Aliotroph? is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
CorSair
Forum Regular


Posts: 873
Registered: 11-12


No matter how officials try to control gun trafficking, no matter what legislative is put on, no matter if you ban the guns all together, it doesn't stop the gunrunning. It is not irregular if someone sells guns behind his car's trunk, or someone has tiny gunsmith's workshop at home. Or someone makes shady purchases from internet. No need to be abroad even.

You really can't tell difference, if the strangers you see or meet wants to shoot people or not. If something clicks inside someone, he will either do it with emotion, grabbing a kitchen knife or shovel and rushes off, or is cold blooded, takes time and does it the possibilities he can do it, by shooting someone or lighting someone with molotov, or anything you could pop in mind.

I really don't mind for regulations for giving gun licenses. But banning them is not really that wise, too.

Old Post 12-12-12 21:31 #
CorSair is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DoomUK
Forum Staple


Posts: 3845
Registered: 04-04



Phml said:
What do you think happens in wars? There's no respawn point in real life.

I knew exactly what I was letting myself in for by joining the discussion, and I'm not looking for a fight, here. But it's interesting how you almost trivialise the concept of someone's stabbing in one breath and then make condescending rebuttals like this in the next. Does one kind of silliness outweigh the other?

But you're right, of course. Less killing would be great. But the world would still have a problem on it's hands, should gun crime no longer be an issue. It's naive to think people's capacity to murder each other through other means wouldn't statistically increase, or to think that determined people wouldn't get creative.

Last edited by DoomUK on 12-12-12 at 21:46

Old Post 12-12-12 21:36 #
DoomUK is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2606
Registered: 07-10



DoomUK said:
Provisionally? It would rob a lot of people of their hobby, sport or occupation.


I personally thought a price for better world would be higher than that.


DoomUK said:
On a bigger scale and more importantly it would deprive people of a means to defend themselves. Of course there's non-lethal ways of disabling a would-be mugger or rapist or murderer, and I'm all in favour of implementing those instead of the "eye for an eye" approach when possible or plausible.



But if there are non-lethal ways of defending oneself, why is the lethal one even brought up as a way of doing so?


DoomUK said:
It's a simplistic and slightly cheesy scenario, but imagine being stuck between a rock and a hard place and having to make the painful decision of killing a psychopath who wants to kill you or someone you love, or killing him: academically, which would you choose?


Imaginations of cheesy scenarios from Americano movies is a fuel for popularity of guns. I have the exact same chance of being in such scenario as becoming a psychopath from that scenario myself. This false sense of security is what stimulates people into thinking they require guns.


Mogul said:


But the American constitution says we can! And it is inspired by God himself! Of COURSE we should have guns!



That's why I don't like this GOD fella.


Aliotroph? said:
I do condone killing in self defense. If killing somebody while defending yourself is punishable then most people shouldn't even try to defend themselves. Killing people accidentally is easy to do, and sometimes people are next to impossible to stop without a mortal wound or six.


How would you determine what is self-defense? Idealistically, it does make sense. But in reality? Just more and more slaughter.


CorSair said:
No matter how officials try to control gun trafficking, no matter what legislative is put on, no matter if you ban the guns all together, it doesn't stop the gunrunning. It is not irregular if someone sells guns behind his car's trunk, or someone has tiny gunsmith's workshop at home. Or someone makes shady purchases from internet. No need to be abroad even.



Not even trying to do anything about it is just another possibility for instigation of our doomsdays.

Old Post 12-12-12 21:38 #
j4rio is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lizardcommando
I'm a good person because I like dogs


Posts: 2362
Registered: 12-01


Why does this conversation ALWAYS pop up when some stupid asshole psychopath goes on a shooting spree? Ultimately, it's the shooter's fault for doing this shit.

Old Post 12-12-12 21:50 #
Lizardcommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 11113
Registered: 07-07


I'm disappointed that so far, nobody has brought the argument that gun controls means people can't rebel against tyranny anymore. This gun control thread is lame.

Having some punks mow down civilians in a school or mall or street or whatever is a small price to pay to feel secure in the knowledge that at least, they will not die in a dictatorship. (In fact, dictatorship can simply be defined as any country with gun control laws.)

Old Post 12-12-12 21:59 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12502
Registered: 07-06



Gez said:
I'm disappointed that so far, nobody has brought the argument that gun controls means people can't rebel against tyranny anymore. This gun control thread is lame.


I'm tired of bringing this up in every "gun control" thread: only dictatorships offen no legal way for citizens to own arms (no matter how deliberately bureaucratic, expensive or discouraging the process might be). For example, most Greek laws on gun ownership (and more in general, weapon laws) are so strict exactly because they date back to the 50s civil war. Guess who codified them....

Also, most pre-industrial European laws on "bearing arms" were codified so that only nobles and their henchmen could bear them (and use them) with impunity, while serfs/peasants couldn't even hunt for food without being fined or even sentenced. Of course, back then communications weren't as efficient or instantaneous as today and peasant revolts/attacks by highwaymen/brigants etc. were always a possibility...

Old Post 12-12-12 22:09 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2606
Registered: 07-10



Gez said:
I'm disappointed that so far, nobody has brought the argument that gun controls means people can't rebel against tyranny anymore. This gun control thread is lame.


Maybe because it makes no sense.

Old Post 12-12-12 22:20 #
j4rio is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12502
Registered: 07-06



j4rio said:
Maybe because it makes no sense.


Actually, it makes a lot of sense: a well-standing nation that trusts its CITIZENS and endows them with a feeling of belonging to a righteous, just and fair organized society (and not being subjects of a rogue, authoritarian or failed state, for instance), also trusts its citizens with the right to bear arms, based on the same mutual trust that exists with e.g. paying taxes: if the citizen has a positive attitude or at least a strong sense of belonging, he will pay his taxes. If he feels that taxes aren't just or reciprocal, he won't pay them.

Similarly, if there's a strong feeling that a state's authority is not just nor legitimate, then that state has a very valid reason to fear those bearing arms: in fact, why to bend over to e.g. a tax exactor of a "state" you don't give two shits about, instead of pumping him full of lead?

Idem, if the state claims to have the monopoly of violence but fails to protect its citizens from organized crime/marauders etc. while insisting on regulating its own citizens, then demans for weapon ownership will rise, whether legal or illegal.

TL;DR: a state that denies its citizens the right to bear arms usually has some reason to fear them/distrust them, that's why attempts at "stricter gun control" should never be taken lightly, nor should purely moral arguments or arguments based on "accident prevention" policies be considered. There is ALWAYS a deeper political motivation whenever guns are involved, and any pretext is always good to restrict legal means of ownership.

Old Post 12-12-12 22:29 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quast
insert title here


Posts: 2635
Registered: 09-02



Maes said:
In hindsight, I wonder if gun control laws could have really stopped Columbine

They didn't acquire their weapons legally anyhow, so no.

While the idea of total gun control or elimination of firearms, at least in the united states might be a quaint idea. It's simply not realistic. Gun culture is intricately woven into the fabric of american society in a multitude of ways and there are too many guns and too many gun owners and too many hutarees and branch davidians and too many other groups that lay in wait for the days something like that happens such they could then feel justified in the bloodshed that would follow should the ATF come knocking.

Old Post 12-12-12 22:32 #
Quast is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Harmata
Loser


Posts: 299
Registered: 03-12



Teenager with knife - one professor or kid stabbed every once in a while, hardly any fatalities.
Teenager with gun - school shooting with multiple casualities.


hardly any fatalities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_Yanming

Chinese mass murderer who entered a dormitory at the Number Two High School in Ruzhou, China on November 26, 2004 with a knife and attacked twelve boys, killing nine of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.

Soviet and Nazi regimes outlawed guns, just sayin'. In Ukraine men are saying that it's better to get your ass kicked than to go to jail because you shot the assaulter. Well okay, if it's only your face in danger, fuck it, but what if assaulter is determined to kill you or other person, your kid or wife? See where gun ban is leading people?

Old Post 12-12-12 23:09 #
Harmata is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12502
Registered: 07-06



Harmata said:
In Ukraine men are saying that it's better to get your ass kicked than to go to jail because you shot the assaulter.


In Greece there's a saying "It's better to be dragged along by Gendarmes than by Priests".

But I concede that this is debatable, if surviving will then lead to certain retaliation, crippling or death in jail afterwards. The best thing to hope for it that you are never forced into such a situation, at least not from a position of relative powerlessness (both physical and legal). In general, the best possible situation for someone to kill an assaulter with minimal legal repercussions is to belong to Law Enforcement. Most laws seem to give criminal attackers a bonus, kind of like a reward for taking the initiative...how perverse is that?


Harmata said:
Knife killings


And let's not forget machete amok attacks in Africa, or medieval/antiquity massacres that were performed just fine without any gunpowder or "black weapons". Against unarmed opponents, even a spear that the most primitive African or Amazonian tribes can give you enough advantage to literally run after people and make them drop dead. Even if they decide to corner you, you can gut 3-4 before going down.

A mounted knight could easily massacre 100 peons without breaking a sweat, if he wanted to (and it was not unheard of, in cases of pillaging/rebellion crushing/instilling examples).

Last edited by Maes on 12-12-12 at 23:25

Old Post 12-12-12 23:18 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 6039
Registered: 08-00


We need to get back to a world where the state exists by the will of the governed only. Such a state cannot disarm its populace, and any attempt to do so WOULD be justifiably met with violence of like kind. Anything less is slavery; you are the property of the government and they will do with you as they see fit.

Old Post 12-12-12 23:21 #
Quasar is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Clonehunter
Forum Staple


Posts: 3706
Registered: 03-10



Lizardcommando said:
Why does this conversation ALWAYS pop up when some stupid asshole psychopath goes on a shooting spree? Ultimately, it's the shooter's fault for doing this shit.


No it's the fault of the OP who created the thread thus sparking people to argue in the first place. Dumbass OP.

Old Post 12-12-12 23:24 #
Clonehunter is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Nomad
Not dumb enough to get a custom title


Posts: 2704
Registered: 04-04



printz said:
I didn't say "OUTLAW the guns", I said that not everyone should be allowed to use them! I mean that there should be a licence requirement to have them, and not a birthright.


The cliche still applies in that scenario though. You can license and regulate guns all you want, but the nasty people who shouldn't have them will still get them if they want them.

Old Post 12-12-12 23:53 #
Nomad is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2606
Registered: 07-10



Maes said:


TL;DR: a state that denies its citizens the right to bear arms usually has some reason to fear them/distrust them, that's why attempts at "stricter gun control" should never be taken lightly, nor should purely moral arguments or arguments based on "accident prevention" policies be considered. There is ALWAYS a deeper political motivation whenever guns are involved, and any pretext is always good to restrict legal means of ownership.



That sounds rather exaggerated. "Political motivation" in halfdecently prosperous country will have close to zero impact on casual individualistic everyday life during which you most likely give not a single rat's ass about political motivation when compared to random strangers on street having a possibility of finishing off your existence because. If there is anything past moral boundary of arguments about gun control, I doubt it will be of more than little to no importance anyway. I just don't see it. Trying to look at it from the grand scheme of things point of view just seems pointless, as there's nothing else to see. Less guns = less dead, there's a linear proportion.


Harmata said:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_Yanming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre



I think there would be a few more gun-related serial killing sprees on wiki than that.




Well okay, if it's only your face in danger, fuck it, but what if assaulter is determined to kill you or other person, your kid or wife? See where gun ban is leading people? [/B]


More imaginary situations.

It usually takes effort to make someone become determinded to "kill you or other person, your kid or wife". You're a little bit more likely to die by natural causes.

Old Post 12-12-12 23:54 #
j4rio is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12502
Registered: 07-06



j4rio said:
random strangers on street having a possibility of finishing off your existence because


Contemporary street crime seems to fit this description pretty well:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27266

and we're back to square zero. You'll argue that the police should prevent such situations and/or that the illegal immigrants should not have been driven to such extremes etc. etc. and by induction, we can trace all the blame to the first culprit ever: CAIN.

Old Post 12-13-12 00:18 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 11113
Registered: 07-07


For all you vigilante wannabes who want to gun down the next psychopathic killer who seems about to threaten your wife or kids or pet, how about a tazer? It neutralizes as efficiently. And if it turns out you overreacted and the potential killer was merely buying skittles and iced tea, you don't get to be a murderer yourself.

Old Post 12-13-12 01:39 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Harmata
Loser


Posts: 299
Registered: 03-12


@j4rio
The point was about casualties, not cases. You can use a gun and kill 2 people, and kill 10 people with a knife. Guns are somewhat easier to use, but knifes don't jam. One dude in Germany used a flamethrower and killed like 8 people, and then killed a teacher with a lance.

More imaginary situations.

Get out from your basement/open your eyes dude. If a person is mentally unstable or thinks that humans are scum you don't have to DO anything to provoke an attack.

tazer

Is less effective than a knife. Tazer gun is better, but has limited range, lower accuracy ad usually they have to be reloaded after 1-2 shots. You also can't shoot through obstacles like doors, which is a very serious flaw for home defense, because locking up in a room and shooting at a criminal that tries to breach the door is an effective tactic.

Besides, you can't fight corrupt government with a tazer.

Old Post 12-13-12 02:50 #
Harmata is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 11113
Registered: 07-07



Harmata said:
Tazer gun


That's actually the kind I meant.

And needing to be reloaded? Boohoo, are you attempting to neutralize a lone criminal or trying to be Rambo vanquishing an entire platoon of hardened criminals? Soon it won't be a gun you need for home defense, but a combat helicopter.

Old Post 12-13-12 02:56 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Harmata
Loser


Posts: 299
Registered: 03-12


OH GOD GEZ WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING MAN THATS RIDICULOUS

Last edited by Harmata on 12-13-12 at 03:29

Old Post 12-13-12 03:20 #
Harmata is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
eargosedown
Forum Regular


Posts: 916
Registered: 12-04



Quast said:

They didn't acquire their weapons legally anyhow, so no.

While the idea of total gun control or elimination of firearms, at least in the united states might be a quaint idea. It's simply not realistic. Gun culture is intricately woven into the fabric of american society in a multitude of ways and there are too many guns and too many gun owners and too many hutarees and branch davidians and too many other groups that lay in wait for the days something like that happens such they could then feel justified in the bloodshed that would follow should the ATF come knocking.



While I hate to make this point, because it effectively says a position is not worth arguing--this post sums it up. Gun spread in the United States will never change, and there's already so many in circulation, and so many people firmly attached to their right to own one for whatever reason they have.

Old Post 12-13-12 03:45 #
eargosedown is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7935
Registered: 08-04


Gun freedom is the only freedom Americans are vigilant to fight for, it seems.

Old Post 12-13-12 03:57 #
Technician is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Caffeine Freak
black and shiny


Posts: 716
Registered: 05-10



Technician said:
Gun freedom is the only freedom Americans are vigilant to fight for, it seems.


Depends on which Americans you're talking about. There's always abortion and gay rights, but it's generally a different set of Americans fighting for those.



j4rio said:
More imaginary situations.



How is a mugging or rape or home invasion an 'imaginary situation', any more than a school shooting is an imaginary situation?

Old Post 12-13-12 04:35 #
Caffeine Freak is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Harmata
Loser


Posts: 299
Registered: 03-12


This thread is now under direct authority of the U S of A, all lesser no-guns nations leave area immediately.
http://i.imgur.com/Qs9bK.jpg
Spoiler:
BUBBLEGUM

Old Post 12-13-12 04:39 #
Harmata is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2606
Registered: 07-10



Harmata said:
@j4rio
Get out from your basement/open your eyes dude. If a person is mentally unstable or thinks that humans are scum you don't have to DO anything to provoke an attack.



But that's precisely what is wrong with this point of view. You just can't do anything to prevent mentally unstable people other than do something to control guns and potentially deprave him of possibility of acquiring one. Equipping yourself will lead to endless "accidental deaths" where no threat was actually happenning, just somebody had a bad moment and overreacted, because he could, because that's precisely the effect of being able to be equipped with a gun. As for gun / other weapon argument, you can't argue that guns are simply uncomparably easier to use and offer potential way to kill for anybody.




Caffeine Freak said:

How is a mugging or rape or home invasion an 'imaginary situation', any more than a school shooting is an imaginary situation?




That actually finally sounds much less imaginary than most of examples pulled out in thread.

I won't answer, but my point of view that being offered with possibility of punishing with death sentence everything you deem like it isn't a solution.

Old Post 12-13-12 07:33 #
j4rio is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Harmata
Loser


Posts: 299
Registered: 03-12



You just can't do anything to prevent mentally unstable people other than do something to control guns and potentially deprave him of possibility of acquiring one.

There are also criminals and the corrupt/totalitarian governments.

you can't argue

Yes i can, because you are simply implying that gun = easy killing spree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
Two bank robbers, fully automatic AKs, thousand of rounds shot, not a single victim except for the robbers themselves.

Old Post 12-13-12 09:07 #
Harmata is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:50. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > Not Quite a Miracle on 34th Street (Macy's Shooting)

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.