Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

violenthandjob    

Rank #24452 on Comments
violenthandjob Avatar Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to violenthandjob Block violenthandjob Invite violenthandjob to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:5/25/2012
Last Login:4/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#24452
Highest Content Rank:#19843
Highest Comment Rank:#5879
Content Thumbs: 17 total,  25 ,  8
Comment Thumbs: 1215 total,  1382 ,  167
Content Level Progress: 35.59% (21/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 14% (14/100)
Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:1140
Total Comments Made:465
FJ Points:1274

latest user's comments

#6 - This one went way over your head didn't it?  [+] (1 new reply) 01/11/2013 on 50 cal +6
User avatar #7 - flemsdfer (01/11/2013) [-]
Ha, more or less.
#103 - I've seen some **** . 01/10/2013 on Cave Painting +4
#43 - I had one of those springs snap off and zip by my head going g… 01/09/2013 on One of the scariest places... +6
#169 - Picture 01/08/2013 on r/atheism 0
#920 - I think mental records as a minor don't carry into adulthood s… 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol 0
#902 - Tell that to LEOs who dump multiple magazines into assailants … 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol 0
#901 - Did she admit herself or was it involuntary?  [+] (2 new replies) 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol 0
User avatar #914 - Keleth (01/07/2013) [-]
her parents admitted her. she was 17 at the time. so technically it was voluntary...but not for her.
User avatar #920 - violenthandjob (01/07/2013) [-]
I think mental records as a minor don't carry into adulthood so that's probably why.
#146 - Picture 01/07/2013 on Oh, the irony +3
#813 - Picture 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol +4
#698 - Doesn't mean the animal should have to suffer, and how many sh… 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol +2
#679 - If an animal was to turn at the last second or a hunter simply… 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol +1
#667 - There already are background checks 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol 0
#662 - Plenty of people hunt with ARs 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol +1
#655 - Picture 01/07/2013 on Gun Patrol 0
#4 - Nobody cares about your opinions. 01/06/2013 on What FJs taught me about... -2
#325 - Picture 01/06/2013 on American women logic comp +2
#1151 - Makes you wonder what else may have been developed back then t… 01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated 0
#1135 - I remember reading that they even used early version on deck g…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated 0
User avatar #1148 - wiseguytwo (01/04/2013) [-]
I'm not surprised. I'm sure there was plenty of tech that was ahead of its time back then and wanted to keep it a secret from the enemy.
User avatar #1151 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
Makes you wonder what else may have been developed back then that maybe we didn't even know was that old.
#1116 - Which is why I think a taser would be more effective in a situ…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated 0
User avatar #1118 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
true but still that doesn't mean you shouldn't try non lethal force first and then if that fails you might use a gun. but really unless you live in a bad area these scenario's are very unlikely to occur.
#1104 - I never brought up multiple assailants, but in that situation …  [+] (3 new replies) 01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated 0
User avatar #1111 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
maybe very determined attackers witch would be very rare in a crime of opportunity .
User avatar #1116 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
Which is why I think a taser would be more effective in a situation like that, but at the same time may escalate the situation. You never know how the criminal may react, they are still humans; each one is different and there's no good way to know what they might do, what their full intentions are, or what their capabilities are such as resisting non-lethal force if the confrontation turns violent.
User avatar #1118 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
true but still that doesn't mean you shouldn't try non lethal force first and then if that fails you might use a gun. but really unless you live in a bad area these scenario's are very unlikely to occur.
#1078 - True that my friend. 01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated 0
#1076 - That is also true, but a point brought up in the video to cons…  [+] (5 new replies) 01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated 0
User avatar #1098 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
well if your constantly getting into situations with multiple assailants then you need to move to a better neighborhood or carry gas grenades plus Couldn't shooting one of them escalate the situation too and really your gonna kill people for trying to steal your wallet ? that doesn't seem extreme to you it is just a piece of leather. realistically tazers ward of would be assailants almost as well as guns and if you have mace to no one is gonna touch you.
User avatar #1104 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
I never brought up multiple assailants, but in that situation I would advocate a firearm even more strongly. Plus I never said anything about discharging the firearm, the presence of one may deter a criminal in and of itself. It's like issuing an ultimatum, they decide where the situation goes from there, if they deescalate that's the end of it. If they turn even more violent, or pull their own weapon you are doing a favor to society by purging them from this violent potentially murderous individual. As for mace, from what I've seen it tends to just piss off determined attackers.
User avatar #1111 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
maybe very determined attackers witch would be very rare in a crime of opportunity .
User avatar #1116 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
Which is why I think a taser would be more effective in a situation like that, but at the same time may escalate the situation. You never know how the criminal may react, they are still humans; each one is different and there's no good way to know what they might do, what their full intentions are, or what their capabilities are such as resisting non-lethal force if the confrontation turns violent.
User avatar #1118 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
true but still that doesn't mean you shouldn't try non lethal force first and then if that fails you might use a gun. but really unless you live in a bad area these scenario's are very unlikely to occur.
#1065 - I think you are overestimating the effect tasers may have on s…  [+] (7 new replies) 01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated 0
User avatar #1066 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
true there are a very few people who are more resistant to tazers (also notice he only had one electrode touching his skin) but the odds of one of them breaking into your house is astronomical.
User avatar #1076 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
That is also true, but a point brought up in the video to consider is thick clothing that may be worn causing the probe/prong not to be able to make contact with the skin. Personally I don't hate tasers though, in fact I if I couldn't use/carry a firearm for defense my first choice would be a taser for the same reason that you've been arguing that they usually have a universal effect on most people.
Thing with taser though is that their effectiveness can be reduced by the dynamics of the situation. Say if you were in an area were you couldn't carry a firearm like a state that bans CCW and you're walking through a dark parking lot and a mugger accosts you, in this situation a taser may very well be useful since muggings are usually opportunistic they may be warded off easily such as with a taser. If they are a more aggressive person though tasering them may only escalate the situation, whereas the presence of more deadly defense such as a firearm, knife, etc. may deter even the more aggressive criminal.
User avatar #1098 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
well if your constantly getting into situations with multiple assailants then you need to move to a better neighborhood or carry gas grenades plus Couldn't shooting one of them escalate the situation too and really your gonna kill people for trying to steal your wallet ? that doesn't seem extreme to you it is just a piece of leather. realistically tazers ward of would be assailants almost as well as guns and if you have mace to no one is gonna touch you.
User avatar #1104 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
I never brought up multiple assailants, but in that situation I would advocate a firearm even more strongly. Plus I never said anything about discharging the firearm, the presence of one may deter a criminal in and of itself. It's like issuing an ultimatum, they decide where the situation goes from there, if they deescalate that's the end of it. If they turn even more violent, or pull their own weapon you are doing a favor to society by purging them from this violent potentially murderous individual. As for mace, from what I've seen it tends to just piss off determined attackers.
User avatar #1111 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
maybe very determined attackers witch would be very rare in a crime of opportunity .
User avatar #1116 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
Which is why I think a taser would be more effective in a situation like that, but at the same time may escalate the situation. You never know how the criminal may react, they are still humans; each one is different and there's no good way to know what they might do, what their full intentions are, or what their capabilities are such as resisting non-lethal force if the confrontation turns violent.
User avatar #1118 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
true but still that doesn't mean you shouldn't try non lethal force first and then if that fails you might use a gun. but really unless you live in a bad area these scenario's are very unlikely to occur.
#1055 - Well personally I wouldn't want to take the chance of anyone l…  [+] (9 new replies) 01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated 0
User avatar #1056 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
slightly reducing the effect of a tazer is like slightly reducing the speed of a charging bull it is still gonna fuck you up.
User avatar #1065 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
I think you are overestimating the effect tasers may have on some people .
www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAH49NY_iY
Watch this video, skip to 2:05 to see my point. While it's also full of other examples of tasers working as designed it showcases that not everyone is effected the same by a charge regardless of intoxication levels.
User avatar #1066 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
true there are a very few people who are more resistant to tazers (also notice he only had one electrode touching his skin) but the odds of one of them breaking into your house is astronomical.
User avatar #1076 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
That is also true, but a point brought up in the video to consider is thick clothing that may be worn causing the probe/prong not to be able to make contact with the skin. Personally I don't hate tasers though, in fact I if I couldn't use/carry a firearm for defense my first choice would be a taser for the same reason that you've been arguing that they usually have a universal effect on most people.
Thing with taser though is that their effectiveness can be reduced by the dynamics of the situation. Say if you were in an area were you couldn't carry a firearm like a state that bans CCW and you're walking through a dark parking lot and a mugger accosts you, in this situation a taser may very well be useful since muggings are usually opportunistic they may be warded off easily such as with a taser. If they are a more aggressive person though tasering them may only escalate the situation, whereas the presence of more deadly defense such as a firearm, knife, etc. may deter even the more aggressive criminal.
User avatar #1098 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
well if your constantly getting into situations with multiple assailants then you need to move to a better neighborhood or carry gas grenades plus Couldn't shooting one of them escalate the situation too and really your gonna kill people for trying to steal your wallet ? that doesn't seem extreme to you it is just a piece of leather. realistically tazers ward of would be assailants almost as well as guns and if you have mace to no one is gonna touch you.
User avatar #1104 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
I never brought up multiple assailants, but in that situation I would advocate a firearm even more strongly. Plus I never said anything about discharging the firearm, the presence of one may deter a criminal in and of itself. It's like issuing an ultimatum, they decide where the situation goes from there, if they deescalate that's the end of it. If they turn even more violent, or pull their own weapon you are doing a favor to society by purging them from this violent potentially murderous individual. As for mace, from what I've seen it tends to just piss off determined attackers.
User avatar #1111 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
maybe very determined attackers witch would be very rare in a crime of opportunity .
User avatar #1116 - violenthandjob (01/04/2013) [-]
Which is why I think a taser would be more effective in a situation like that, but at the same time may escalate the situation. You never know how the criminal may react, they are still humans; each one is different and there's no good way to know what they might do, what their full intentions are, or what their capabilities are such as resisting non-lethal force if the confrontation turns violent.
User avatar #1118 - timmywankenobi (01/04/2013) [-]
true but still that doesn't mean you shouldn't try non lethal force first and then if that fails you might use a gun. but really unless you live in a bad area these scenario's are very unlikely to occur.
#405 - Picture 01/04/2013 on The amount of WAT on my face +3

Comments(0):

 
Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
No comments!
 Friends (0)