Fox Fire

http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af32/fox4sox4/GoldenKnight2_zpsjizs5c6l.png

Try mibbit. I've been able to use it from my phone, but that's because I was too lazy to get out of bed. Also, request a diplomatic post. Diplomacy is the game behind the game. Nah dude. If you have an android, check out this IRC guide I made: http://ironcentral.org/community/topic/42814-smartphone-irc-guide/ I used to leave that running on my phone all day and it doesn't really take any battery. If you decide to try it out, let me know if it works out for you.

Make friends, talk to people, play games with each other or take a job and help the alliance. This game overall doesn't get much more interesting if you don't be part of the community. Though, everyone has varying levels of activity and places they hang out. Like IRC, forums, skype, etc. IRC can be kinda fun though our channel #IRON isn't the most lively these days, there are many other channels.

How is this? http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af32/fox4sox4/RSpecto2_zps43sg2vev.png

Sorry for the wait. What do you think of this design? http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af32/fox4sox4/GoldenKnight_zpsokl6drmt.png

Aye...that is what has struct me very confused as well. I just couldn't imagine not even at least glancing quickly or peeking over with my eye. I get I'm not a trained reporter, and if that's what they're taught then I guess I get it, however when something or someone appears in my peripheral vision I think most humans would at least peek over with their eye for a quick second to see what or who it is, especially as I feel if someone pulls up something and seems to be pointing something at you, that you'd glance over. And even more, the person being interviewed who was more squared to the individual didn't even glance over. I don't know how one would not react to someone in their line of sight, especially when he held up he gun and then took it down. That truely boggled my mind, and it just seems so odd, as my wife instantly said the same thing when she watched it (thought it might only be me). Not that it would of mattered, had they saw it early and reacted he just would've open fire sooner, but still. The other thing that struct me odd was his first shot seemed to have missed, even the second seemed to, as the reporter started to run away. Just seems odd someone can miss two shots (or at least not hit them well enough to stop them from running), yet was able to shoot a moving target on the run. Reports have said the two were shot in the head. Then you got the people coming out of their houses with their tin foil hats claiming false flag. I don't believe them, but there are some oddities that at least make one ponder. Re your second paragraph. I was thinking the same, but it's probably just adrenaline or something (can a science guy verify this?), I just don't really see how you can miss at such close range You see all these police shootings and you see the victims running away for a while until their adrenaline dies out and their body feels the effect and they eventually collapse. The sound of the gunfire, probably kicked off her adrenaline before the bullet even hit her body (can someone verify this too) Yea I would imagine adrenaline would kick in, especially if a shot didn't hit them in something that would cause them to not be able to move (head or leg would probably prevent from running). I can't really say because I've never been shot to know, but the first shot and how the reporter reacted seemed more of a reaction to the noise and likely the bullet just missing them as I would think you'd react instantly to grabbing the part of the body that was struck....had it hit her arm (grasping it), hit her chest (bending over from pain). If both people who died, died from gun shots to the head, I would almost have to think they were hit somewhere else and he later walked up and shot them in the head. Often when people are shot just once or twice, the shock and adrenaline can keep them going for a while without much physical reaction. From what I hear, you don't really feel the bullet hit you. More like it suddenly feels on fire after a few seconds. I think the first shot probably hit her and then maybe the third one.

In a country full of guns, of course an individual would find a way, legal or not. I see a circle here, specifically from your quote. "Better have it and not need it then need it and not have one". Tell me this: Would you need a gun if they were not as easily accessible? Yes. I would think I'd need one, because unlike most sheeple, I don't consider someone special just because they have a title. Like soldier or police officer. In the end, we are all human and all just as susceptible to violence. I'm not going to kid myself that person A is more trustworthy than person B to hold a firearm.

Yes. Our gun laws are pretty much fine. They could actually be a slight bit more open. I mean, let's say our gun laws were different. Do you think they would have stopped that? There are huge differences between Europe and America when talking about gun control. For one, there is no reasonable way to even track all the guns people own right now. There are stockpiles of firearms buried all over the continent for example whom nobody knows exists other than the people who buried them. So you literally cannot take everyones guns away. So that's an impossibly stupid solution. Next you say we might need tighter restrictions and universal background checks. Equally impossible without outlawing private sales. Then that will just lead to it all going underground and on the dark web. America is the single largest arms producer on the planet and so many untracked guns are floating around here. The homicide problem in America is a cultural issue, and many people have committed worse acts without using guns at all. Sure, let's make tighter gun restrictions. Then when that doesn't work we can keep tightening those restrictions until only "special" people can own firearms. But since so many unchecked guns already exist, then the criminals will also have guns. Here's my solution: Give everyone over 18 a gun and require them to take annual firearms training. If people decide to kill each other then so be it. Everyone will be on a somewhat equal level.

Would you rather have a regular forum signature- something like this? http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af32/fox4sox4/FoxFoxburo5_zpscxfqn9zj.png Or a flag?

Would you like the black ones globe to match then, like so? http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af32/fox4sox4/Ziggy6_zpssjsszlnz.png http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af32/fox4sox4/Ziggy5_zpswrpcgvze.png Or orange?

I was thinking something like this: Some quick concepts:

Yay! Finally a new request! I love flags! I actually have the perfect symbol and layout idea for this. A basic idea I thought up a while ago but never had a chance to use. Not sure if you'll like it or not. Give me a couple days or so, as I'll be busy the next few. But I'll try to make up a few designs ASAP.

Dogz

I disagree. Shootings and even murder is quite rare here. When it does happen, there is usually a justified reason. People don't go around doing drive bys or killing the liqueur store employee very often. In fact, most store robberies tend to take place when they are closed. I personally think a big reason for this is that guns around here are as available as candy and you never really know who's got one on hand at any given time in any given situation. It's not even uncommon to see regular civilians open carrying pistols in very public places like stores, parks, etc. Other people conceal carry, some people drive around with a handgun in their car. I mean, I've even done all this myself. So unless you're willing to die for it, you probably won't go around shooting at people here. What is 'rare' in America? 20 shootings a month? And when you say 'here' i'm not referring to your state, i'm talking about the whole country. You have gangbangers shooting rival gang members all the time Right. And that is generally a bigger problem in states that have tighter gun regulations. In my state, it's very rare. And living here, I would think it's because everyone is armed. I sure as hell would not want to walk into any house (be it high class homes or poverty stricken apartments) and try to rob anyone. Not because it's a crime or anything, but for the sole fact that there is probably a 50% chance or more I might never come out alive. On the other hand, the only other major factor I can think of in all this is population. Compared to California, Idaho is nothing in terms of population. But regardless. I really think you see gun regulation in order to keep it out of gangsters hands. But at the same time, you're assuming that criminals and gangs abide by the law. So it leaves countless other people defenseless in the face of guns, but if everyone had a gun and everyone knew everyone had a gun, how often do you think shootings would take place? Smaller population yes, but around here it seems to be a deterrent quite nicely. Especially in cases of armed robbery. Like I said, stores get broken into after closing time. Rarely when they are open. Nobody wants to fuck with the 12g under the cash register.

I disagree. Shootings and even murder is quite rare here. When it does happen, there is usually a justified reason. People don't go around doing drive bys or killing the liqueur store employee very often. In fact, most store robberies tend to take place when they are closed. I personally think a big reason for this is that guns around here are as available as candy and you never really know who's got one on hand at any given time in any given situation. It's not even uncommon to see regular civilians open carrying pistols in very public places like stores, parks, etc. Other people conceal carry, some people drive around with a handgun in their car. I mean, I've even done all this myself. So unless you're willing to die for it, you probably won't go around shooting at people here.

I'm sorta leaning toward the idea that he was simply shit faced drunk, being stupid, thinking he was tough and that the cops wouldn't actually shoot him. You have gang bangers here, and then you have gang bangers born and raised in Idaho who are a total joke but think they're something.

If you have the right to shoot once, you have the right to shoot a dozen times. This is not the movies and a single gunshot wound does not send someone into a dramatic seizure. An angry, or drunk, or drug-addled person can shoot you no matter how many holes are in them, depending on the location of the hole. The typical trained reaction is to squeeze the trigger until well past the point that the gun runs dry. The more holes in the suspect, the more likely you've prevented them from shooting you or someone you care about. Disregarding the reason for the stop in the second video, the officer had better ways to handle the entire encounter, but he chose the testosterone-laden power trip. He did not even ask the suspect to exit the car, and just went straight for the door. He did everything possible to ratchet up that guy's adrenaline level, and then acted surprised when it sparked a fight-or-flight reaction. If you are dealing with someone angry or distrustful, you want to wind down their adrenaline, despite your own body's adrenaline trying to get a similar reaction out of you. That is, unless you intend to drive them into irrational behavior. Cops should never encourage irrational behavior on the street (in the interrogation room is another story). Well my point would be they could have had non lethal ways to take down both guys in both videos. Most of the shots seemed to miss anyway so I suppose it wasn't too bad for the guy but the attitude I'm getting from you guys is that it is ok to shoot first and ask questions later. The guy in the second video was just unlucky that he got charged for murder because he had no reason to stop him. Making up excuses for the guy in the second video is strange since he also brought being gunned down on himself, you say the guy should be dead for being an idiot in the first video and I think the same true for the second guy and well he is dead. I can only hope the cop isn't convicted because it's not his fault, he's getting mixed messages from all directions. Made a mistake stopping the guy but by the logic Americans have regarding shooting people he was totally justified to shoot him. Alright, I'd like to point out that the guy in the OP was shot with a tazer. In fact, I think the tazer hit him before any bullets did, and that is why he suddenly tensed up and dropped (but they all opened fire at once so...). Regardless, if you were the cop in that situation, are you really going to rely on a tazer to stop a (possible) handgun? I wouldn't, unless I had no choice. But if I had the choice to use lethal force to stop lethal force from stopping me, it's going to happen. I actually just drove right past the location that film took place tonight and although I don't know the guy, you really can't deny when watching the video that nothing less than lethal force was qualified. I was seriously surprised at how calm those cops were with him, and he responded by pretending to aim a gun at them while running at them. They didn't shoot first and ask questions later. They did what any intelligent person would have done. They even looked him up once they stopped him nd were calling him by name. They did what they were trained to do by the book. They gave him every fair chance in the world for 3 minutes straight. His shooting is entirely his own fault. He was stopped by lethal force instantly in a town where gun regulation almost doesn't exist. It's quite literally asking to be killed. That stupid ass is lucky to be alive. As for the second video. Say I come to your house for a small party one day. I don't like the way one of your friends is behaving so I start asking him questions. He starts to walk aw- Oops. I shot him in the face. But it was justified because I was stressed out. No. We have laws. And those laws apply to cops just as much as they apply to me.

That's actually bad in Idaho in particular. Mostly because nothing ever happens in this lame ass state, so if something goes down, every cop in the area shows up to see whats going on. More police generally means a better outcome for a suspect. An unarmed suspect is far more likely to be shot by a single policeman than multiple policemen. A single policeman has to worry if he has enough physical strength to subdue a suspect. Multiple don't. If I'm going to be arrested, feel free to use as many policemen as is necessary to keep me from getting shot. It's like the old joke about inviting teetotalling Baptists to a party. You always want at least two, because one will drink all your beer. are we watching the same video? it looked like all 5 of them fired at least 2 shots each Fuck yeah. They completely unloaded on his ass and only shot him 4 times. Regardless, I and even you, would do the same.

That's actually bad in Idaho in particular. Mostly because nothing ever happens in this lame ass state, so if something goes down, every cop in the area shows up to see whats going on.

If someone went to shoot me in a standoff like that, I would probably empty my magazine into them. Or at least keep shooting until they stop moving. That's not trigger happy, it's just not taking the chance of getting shot. I'm certainly not just going to shoot once and hope that stops the person from shooting at me. Honestly, I think DuBose had every intention of driving off from the start. I think he was trying to get the cop to go back to his car and run his name to give him a chance to take off. But the shooting was still illegal.

The guy was also carrying a bunch of pot, but legally speaking, the officer was entirely in the wrong and now he's being charged with murder. The cops in the OP weren't trigger happy, they spent over 2 minutes telling him to show his hands and when he did, he was obviously pretending to point a gun at them. Any person would have shot him in that situation.

There's a big difference between the incident in the OP and say this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJus8tU6NCE The guy in the OP was literally asking to be shot without actually saying "shoot me." The guy in this other video however did nothing wrong and was murdered. The cop had no legal justification for trying to pull him out of the car, and he certainly didn't have a reason to shoot him in the face. It's cases like that which are absurd and happen too often.

At least the idiot is still alive.

Not usually. All the American media is focused on unjustified shootings. I'd say it's proper work. They were pretty nice with that guy. And around this area, gun laws are almost non-existent and tons of people own guns, so it was safe for them to assume he probably had one, which he didn't. But with that being said, shootings are pretty rare in this area.

So last month an unarmed man was shot by police near where I live. Given all the talk about police brutality lately, initially you would think "Great. Cops being dicks again." But then they released the video and my thoughts are simply "wat?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv8wWGUl1N8 A few things to note: He was unarmed.He was drunk.He survived.He was stopped after cops received a domestic violence call. (He beat his pregnant girlfriend and drove off I guess).He claims he was trying to throw his keys to the police when they shot him.You can't really hear what he's saying in the video, but he's more or less talking crap to the cops, saying things like "You guys aint got shit," etc. I just can't figure out if he was trying to kill himself or if he was just being a complete drunk idiot and didn't think they would shoot. But he definitely wasn't throwing any keys. Good luck trying to take that to court. No charges have been filed last I heard.