Poll: HE'S GOT A GUN!!!

[Ph0t0n1c Ph34r]

I cast magic missile.

You failed the check for half damage. Too bad.

 

[A.A.K]

depends how close he is. If hes close enough-disarm and then shoot him in the foot or hand for being a twat. if hes too far. then...pray to god. distract him. and then since we're in a local shopping centre-leg it behind something that could be used as cover.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

I'm glad I'm not alone in the Disarming thing. Honestly, during my school days I'd always hoped some emo kid would bring a gun just so I could stab him with a pencil and be a hero.
Off topic Kudos to the maker of this thread!
You get 1 internets, for making an original post.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

Step one, get loved ones out of the way. Step two, be thankful I'm in a state which allows licensed concealed carry. The problem will resolve itself.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I fling a dustbin at him and hop over the nearest non-leathal ledge.

 

[Lord Thodin]

If I was close enough to actually swat the gun away I would. If not Id shield love one and try to talk to him. If that didnt work, IM GETTIN THE HELL OUTTA THERE!

 

[SimuLord]

Shoot first, ask questions later. Seriously I dont carry a gun just because I feel like it, I carry it for self defence.

This is my thought. I love Nevada.

 

[Aqualung]

After watching so much Doctor Who, I'm starting to get the feeling that I would rather talk to the guy instead...

 

[twistedshadows]

If I was with someone defenseless (like one of my young cousins), I'd definitely shield them.
If I was alone, I'd most likely try to take cover in a good area.

 

[SnowCold]

Well, alot of people in my town are war veterins, so I'm probbly fucked.

Though everyone else are huge pussys, so if it's someone I know is a pussy, I will drop to the ground and when they will crap theirs pants after shooting the gun, I'll take it.

 

[Disaster Button]

Mine's more of a combo, I'd shield a loved one, or one of my friends. Or alternatively step in front my group of friends if there were more than one. Then try to talk him down.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Another couple of options: "Drop to the floor" "Flee"

Yes, if you're bent on choosing one of the options, that of "trying to" disarm him, you'd better at least be right next to him. But no, the example does not say that. The example doesn't say that at all. It says that as much as the option to disarm an enemy nation implies you have airplanes above it, missiles en route, or troops inside their weapons facilities at present. By the statements which you've seen fit to reason by, "fleeing" doesn't work at close range, so by this 'logic' you've presented, since fleeing "is an option the only logical conclusion is" that he must be a fair distance away.

It is physically impossible for you to disarm someone if he is not within reach. It is possible to try to run away regardless of how close or far away he is.

Try to keep up.

You seem to be having some trouble with the concepts of mobility and the progression of time. If someone intends to do something with their hands to something that is currently out of reach, they can do some handiwork with their legs in order to move their hands closer to that object. At a later point in time, those hands will be close enough in order to carry out the desired operation. This was groundbreaking to me when I was a toddler as well. Now, to say that including the option "try to disarm him" somehow necessitates that the example implies the gun is within hands' reach, you also have to believe that it is impossible for someone to approach a gunman. Oh, that's likely to get you shot? I'm shocked.

The only reasonable course of action is to treat the example as it is stated and infer nothing from the options because their success is not guaranteed.

See how that 'logic' doesn't work?

That's your problem. It isn't my logic.

Before running away in the most efficient way possible, you would have to be facing the direction you need to run. So clearly by offering 'flee' the example suggests that the man is behind you.

It's exactly your logic, now take it like a man.

 

[C.O.C]

well I'd disappear ninja style only to shout out in anime style my attack before i do it. cus thats one of the rules of anime and it will do double damage or critical hit or something awesome like that. then when i do hit him big japanese letters will flash on the screen and then...SMOKE BOMB i'm outta there

 

[StigmataDiaboli]

Push loved one out the way then kick them in the balls, then knee in the face.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You seem to be having some trouble with the concepts of mobility and the progression of time. If someone intends to do something with their hands to something that is currently out of reach, they can do some handiwork with their legs in order to move their hands closer to that object. At a later point in time, those hands will be close enough in order to carry out the desired operation. This was groundbreaking to me when I was a toddler as well. Now, to say that including the option "try to disarm him" somehow necessitates that the example implies the gun is within hands' reach, you also have to believe that it is impossible for someone to approach a gunman. Oh, that's likely to get you shot? I'm shocked.

You know what happens when you start running towards someone who is pointing a gun at you? He shoots you.

You seem to be having some trouble with the concepts of 'possibility' and 'necessity'. If something is necessary, it cannot fail to happen. If something is possible, it could happen. If something is probable, it will most likely happen but is not the only possibility; it is possible and not necessary. Getting shot when running at someone with a gun therefore falls into the category of possible (as well as probable) because it can fail to happen that you would be shot. Just like it can fail to happen that you would get shot when trying to disarm someone. We're talking about probabilities here, so can it with your "logic". The connections between concepts that you make are very simply contrived to support your conclusion.

The only reasonable course of action is to treat the example as it is stated and infer nothing from the options because their success is not guaranteed.

The only logical conclusion is that the gunman is standing in front of you, within hand-to-hand range.

Oh, I love playing games of "let's repeat ourselves verbatim!" Ok, here I go: The only reasonable course of action is to treat the example as it is stated and infer nothing from the options because their success is not guaranteed.

Before running away in the most efficient way possible, you would have to be facing the direction you need to run. So clearly by offering 'flee' the example suggests that the man is behind you.

It doesn't matter where he is, you can still try to run away. It just isn't very clever if he is in front of you.

It doesn't matter where he is, you can still try to disarm him. It just isn't very clever if he isn't right in front of you.

It's exactly your logic, now take it like a man.

The following statement is something you agree with: "we should gas all Jews." Why do you agree with it? Because I say you do! So simple!

You can either own your own logic or you can disown it. You don't get to do both (unless you're fine with being irrational and stubborn.) When you're talking about logical implications, I get to run other examples through your proffered thought process to show you your mistake. And you most certainly did make one. Would you like me to make an accusation about your psychological state now? Or would it be better to say that I've seen this all before and that your argument is the result of conspiratorial propaganda? Actually, all of that would probably sound just as retarded coming from me as it did when it was coming from you. So I'll just repeat myself, as seems the fashion trend:

Before running away in the most efficient way possible, you would have to be facing the direction you need to run. So clearly by offering 'flee' the example suggests that the man is behind you.

It's obvious that isn't implied by the example, and it's also obvious that the gun being within hands' reach isn't implied by the example. For the record, you would get to allege that I agree with "we should gas all Jews" if I had said something that suggested it, such as "we should gas all those of minority religious sects." You are clearly under the assumption that something has to be a defensible plan for it to be an option, and in that way the options presented can influence the example. But this is apparently only true some of the time as it appears only to be true in the case of the option you picked. Your approach is inconsistent and the "logic" you are using is apparently a biased version no one has ever heard of.

 

[historybuff]

You know, the Americans on this thread are going to be like, "We'll just shoot him. Not a problem." High-five to them.


Personally, I don't have my gun permit yet. So I would try to talk to him and get close to him.

 

[Saul B]

-Snip-

I don't think he'll be able to hit head or vital organs even if he DOES hit me.

Your torso is quite a large target, filled with lungs and kidneys and livers, you know.

 

[Iron Mal]

If possible I would take the first round he fires (instead of any other innocent bystanders) and then proceed to reduce him to a fine paste with my bare hands.

Problem solved, everyone wins (with the possible exception of the guy who pulled the gun but he can just shut up and be happy for me).