OK Sorry, more OT - kid violence
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
Coming from someone who still believes the Covid vaccine works and should be forced to have it, your words carry no weight.
If you have that much space you should try a 22-250. No recoil and 4000+ fps. And put down land mines
Dumb people carrying creates problems. Normal people carrying does not. I’ve carried for 5 yrs and no one would ever know I had anything under my clothes. Not gonna get caught without one.
This^^^^^
The term ASSAULT WEAPON is USUALLY EITHER way too broad AN OR they the LIBTARDS who USUALLY know little about guns, OR what a Assault weapon actually is, is WEIRD, BIZARRE specific definitions, features, etc, that are NOT, or shouldn't be features of a Assault weapon.
Example: Under the LIBTARDS definitions, etc, of what a Assault weapon, a Semi Automatic BB/Pellet/22(very small, not much more then Pellets), gun with a clip, cartridge, magazine, that is painted, has the cut, style, shape, form, look of a ASSAULT weapon gun, could be banned under this WA law
Most conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalist, moderates, Independents, centrist, blue dog democrats, Republicans, Rhinos, etc, would join liberals, Democrats in saying they don't want Bazooka's, Flame throwers, automatic AK 47's, semi Automatic AK 47's, M4, M11, M16, tommy guns, machine guns, sub machine guns, TRUE ASSAULT GUNS, etc, in the hands of anyone, let alone mentally unfit, and ok with banning those specific type of guns, weapons.
All other guns, including NON MILITIARY SEMI AUTO LIMITED AR 15's, that are used to hunt BEARS, etc, should not be banned.
Probably limiting AR 15's would be ok. And keeping any guns out of the hands of mentally unfit, is good.
And REASONABLE gun control, background checks is ok, good.
The problem conservatives, NON liberals have with Liberal's Gun control BANS, Restrictions, etc, is that they are often not REASONABLE, are, can be a SLIPPERY SLOPE into unconstitutional violations into 2nd Amendment.
Conservatives, NON Liberals care just as much about gun safety, preventing mass shootings, stopping, preventing, limiting gun violence, etc, as Liberals, Libtards, etc, as long as 2nd amendment not violated, etc.
The Supreme Court will probably EVENTUALLY Shoot down Inslee's law, but the LIBTARD 4TH CIRCUIT court of appeals that governs WA area, will probably uphold it.
“Dumb” is going to places and putting yourself into situations wheee you might need a gun.
Where exactly are you going that you need to be packing heat? The hood? Afghanistan? A proud boys rally? An insurrection? The grocery store? The shopping mall?
I will never understand the fear/paranoia/insecurity/machismo or whatever it is that compels people to pack heat in public. Never.
Last edited:
Two different questions. 1) define what it means to work? Do you mean it doesn't prevent serious or reduce serious illness, or that it doesn't work in that it doesn't prevent the spread?
And do you think I or Willie still believe there should be a mandate?
Mik...you trying to win hearts and minds with Libtard talk? Yes, there are a ton of bears in LA. But I am with you . Inner city and suburbia should load up. I think every person of color should join the NRA, gun up. I agree with you most people on the left (which I lean left) have it all wrong. Gun up. I think every inner city kid and family (above 18 of course) should carry a bear gun.
You're the guy who said that you'd shoot someone when they are an acre away. At that point, you're just shooting blindly like some hillbilly jerkwad. There is absolutely no scenario in the United States where you need a 556 for home defense, even in the country. I lived on 13 acres in rural Washington when I was younger and I didn't have a single time where my life depended on having an M4 on hand to defend myself. We shot the shit out of the guns we had, but they were semi-auto 22's, shotguns and hunting rifles. Weird how that used to be enough.
In fact, the only person that I knew as a kid who had a rifle that shot 556 was my legitimately certified insane neighbor who had a Mini 14 rifle that he bought illegally after being dishonorably discharged from the army. The dude was fascinating to hang out with but he was batshit crazy.
So no, you don't need a 556 and you are a crazy asshole if you think that shooting at people from hundreds of feet away is any kind of reasonable action.
Hilarious.... My daily laugh quota has been fulfilled by the never-been-used origins of your comeback.
Since we are talking about gun violence and the media's constant attack on straight white males, here is something that won't see anything more than an internet side-story... Why? Probably because it doesn't fit any agenda/narrative being pushed by liberals and their media corporate cronies.
Wrong skin color for narratives
Note the fact it doesn't mention that it is a Black male but just a male.. And lookie what we have here...
The right skin color for narratives to push
Wrong skin color for narratives
Note the fact it doesn't mention that it is a Black male but just a male.. And lookie what we have here...
The right skin color for narratives to push
If you knew ahead of time where you would be needing a firearm for self protection or the protection of others, you could make a rational decision not to go there. But since you will never know where or when it might be needed, that is a cogent argument for carrying your firearm with you. Some quick examples are the guy that took out a shooter in the Portland mall, the guys that took out the shooter in the Texas church, and the other Texan that I believe was a neighbor but ran to take out the shooter in another Texas church. Who would have thought they would need a firearm for protection in a mall or a church? Nobody would expect that, but it doesn't hurt to carry protection just in case. I also recall a case back east (southeast somewhere, I think) where several people were killed in a black church. Maybe if someone had been carrying there the carnage could have been greatly reduced?
Yep - nowhere in America is safe anymore. I haven't started packing but I do think about it.
Unfortunately that’s the problem. Take a look around…yup those idiots can go to a sporting goods store, drop down a thousand bucks, and be the owner of a shiny assault rifle. Of course it’s the people. But the fact they can easily buy weapons that are capable of mowing down a room full of people is also a problem.
Why do you think liberal cronies "push that narrative"? Honest question, how does it affect you? Does it deny you your gun rights? Are you somehow injured by it? I get that it "bothers' you but is there any harm done?
Now, there are two different news outlets. I had not heard they caught the shooter that fled after shooting the young girl who retrieved her basketball.
But looking at the two articles from my lens, not sure I would call NPR biased. Maybe you do, I just don't . Yes, they referred to the shooter as white. The lead photo was the victim playing his band instrument. (BTW ..."one time, at band camp") There was a small photo down the page of the shooter. How many other 16 year old's has he been scared of that rang his door bell? How many times has he shot them.
The ABC story the first thing you see is the shooter. You don't need a description of him. The first three full blown pics show who he was. And he has shown he is violent and has shown he shouldn't have access to a gun. You need ABC to say "she was shot by a black man" when there is three full blown pictured of him?
But being a "libtard" and a parent of two girls, do you really think I give two shits what color the shooter is? I care that a cheerleader is shot in Texas by going to the wrong car, I give a shit about the 20 year old woman who went down the wrong driveway, I care about the kid who is going to pick up his brother and went to the wrong house. These shooters weren't threatened.
What are the odds of something occurring in my vicinity when I’m out and about? Virtually zero. It’s so unlikely it’s not on my radar and I’m not going to succumb to the fear mongering and line the pockets of the gun industry because of it.
I’m not anti gun by any stretch but to me they’re just a tool like a shovel or saw.
The past 20 years has seen a disgusting eroticizing of guns and military-style gear for gimps. This is a huge part of the problem.
Guns were once the realm of hunters and hobbyists but the gun industry using their marketing firm the NRA realized they could make a killing by fear mongering and fetishization. Utterly despicable how the NRA became a corrupt and unethical organization.
I hate the f-ing NRA. And that Wayne Lapierre - every time I see that creeps face I want to hunt him down and kill him. 32 years he's been leading that hate group.
I try to avoid these kinds of topics -- I'm pro-gun rights generally, but not all that seriously -- but were any of those incidents committed with "assault rifles?" I doubt it, other than possibly the one in Maine, where I can't find anything dispositive but the nature of the incidents suggests it either was, or could have been, achieved with a rifle. (The guy didn't mow down people in a crowded place, but instead killed his parents and was shooting randomly at cars on the highway.) That guy couldn't legally own guns, by the way.
So these incidents, at least, don't make a lot of sense to use as reasons to ban whatever someone might deem an assault rifle. Most of them were handguns (as are most shootings) and the one of these I actually looked into, the perpetrator couldn't own guns at all. Banning assault rifles or anything else would not have prevented his actions.
Lapierre is a PoS. Harlon Carter is the OG MotherF***** who staged the coup back in 1977 that sent the NRA on its current lunatic trajectory.
I would prefer that in EVERY media story that they use either MALE OR FEMALE instead of BLACK OR WHITE MALE and BLACK OR WHITE FEMALE, except, unless it's a obvious, clear cut, semi proven RACIST, RACIAL, BIGOTED, HATE CRIME, and they need to say BLACK OR WHITE MALE OR FEMALE to convey that.
I'd also prefer that they use PERSON over MALE or FEMALE, except, unless it's a guy that raped a woman, etc, in order to convey a targeted male vs woman crime, etc.
The liberal white male guilter lame stream main stream media narrative likes using White or Black or Male or Female to try to portray ALL or MOST WHITE MALES AS ALL BAD, etc.
It's the same tactic, reason the 1950's, 1960's systemic racist media used BLACK MALE Instead of Male, or Female instead of person, to portray a lot of blacks, females as supposedly dumb criminals, etc.
Now it's been flipped, reverse, and reverse systemic racism, bigotry, hate, narrative, etc, by the mainstream narrative, against White Males, etc.
Your example highlights proves that.
The lame stream mainstream media OFTEN mentions, says, uses WHITE MALE, but if it's a female or a Black person, etc, then the lame stream mainstream often mentions, says, uses Male or Female, or Person, if it's a Black person instead of a white person, or a female instead of a male, etc.
The lame stream main stream media usually isn't fair, consistent, equal, etc, in, on, about this and other things.
And people either don't see it, or ignore it, or accept it, and allow it, etc
True, if you’re limiting the scope of this to just the incidents brought up. We all know there’s plenty of other incidents where these types of weapons allowed for far more casualties (Uvalde, Vegas). I guess for me it’s not thinking these things won’t ever happen again…it’s the fact that 2 dead kids, while tragic, is a far cry from 20 dead kids in the same incident with a different type of gun. Therein lies the question- is it worth having far fewer fatalities in these tragedies if it means a responsible gun owner can’t legally buy that type of weapon?
That's a fail in the system failing to require that a person have to prove, or have proven that they are mentally fit, pass a LEGIT background check, etc.
A couple, few, some things like ENFORCED LEGIT background checks can be, are good, etc.
Any rational conservative, libertarian, Republican, rhino, constitutionalist, independents, Moderates, that are for the 2nd Amendment, guns, NRA, etc, are for GUN SAFETY EDUCATION, BACKGROUND CHECKS, because they want to see guns owned, used, etc, SAFELY, RESPONSIBLY, BY THE MENTALLY FIT, NOT MENTALLY UNFIT, etc.
Keeping guns out of the wrong hands is the right thing to do.
Banning guns is not the right thing to do.
The only guns that should be banned, are M4, M11, M16, AK 47, TOMMY GUN, Gattling Gun, Machine Gun, Sub Machine Gun, Bazooka's, Flamethrowers, etc.
Semi Auto NON MILITIARY, LIMITED AR 15 that used to Hunt Bears, Moose, and other big game animals, and semi auto pistols, and semi auto shot guns, semi auto rifles like semi auto 22, 30/30, 240, 270, etc should NOT BE BANNED, etc
Ed you as a Liberal don't care about color.
That's not true of somewhere between a lot and most liberals.
Somewhere between some to a lot to most liberals, especially white or white guilter liberals, do care about color, and do have a axe to grind with, about white males in general, and feel guilty as a white person, and so will often use white male if white, and male if black, in order to PAINT white males as bad, etc.
Never met a guilty white male and I know a lot of people . I would be interested in sitting down with one and finding out what makes them tick
100% agree, step one is background checks, etc. problem is you said “rational”
…and “irrational” people (or rational but bought off by $$) aren’t allowing that to happen.
“Banning guns is not the right thing to do”. Fair opinion. But, in the context of the above where leaders aren’t being rational regarding background checks, licensing, etc. I’d argue it is the right thing to do. Too much money clogging the system and buying influence though, so here we are.
The thing you, others are not getting, is that you if you literally ban all guns, and ENFORCE that, the criminals WOULD STILL get all kinds of guns,even ASSAULT GUNS, from the BLACK MARKET, EASILY, CHEAPLY, etc, and would still do shootings, and Mass Shootings, etc.
And the CRIME, VIOLENT SHOOTINGS RATE will go up.
Take Australia, and other places that have completely BANNED ALL GUNS, and have ENFORCED that.
I'm those places like Australia, etc, the violent shootings rate has gone up. The criminals still get their guns, assault guns, and still do their violent mass shootings.
In this country, one only needs to look at Chicago, Compton, Oakland, LA, DC, NYC, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, etc, where they have the toughest, gun laws, anti gun laws, bans, etc, where the mass violent shootings, etc, have increased, etc, where criminals still get guns, assault weapons, etc.
Now if want to solve this problem, the answer is not anti gun laws.
The answer is eliminate drugs, gangs, have better parenting, better crime prevention, better education, address mental health, homelessness problems, have some sensical limited restrictions, gun control, background checks, gun safety education, etc, that are ENFORCED, get guns into the hands of mentally fit, responsible, good law abiding citizens, and out of the hands of mentally unfit, criminals, etc.
Easier said then done, but things like that is the solution over anti guns, banning guns, etc.
But even if banning all guns were to be the solution, it's still against the 2nd Amendment of the constitution that says SHALL NOT BE IMPINGED.
If people don't like the 2nd Amendment, then change the 2nd Amendment, as there is a legal process for changing the constitution.
Not guilty white male. A white male guilter.
A white male guilter is a white person, white male, who thinks white males are bad, and thinks white males should pay for what happened a extreme long ago, and they feel guilty, bad for being white or white male themselves, and they have a agenda against white males, and they want to PAINT white males as bad. Basically the reverse of what media did to Paint blacks as bad in the 40's, 50's, etc.
White guilters, and white male guilters are quite common, and most to almost all of them are liberal.
Absolutely not for banning all guns. There’s only a small category I think should be considered in the current environment.
not saying we can’t work on some of that stuff, but “eliminating drugs and gangs” is a pipe dream. Decades of time and trillions of dollars on specific programs probably wouldn’t cut it in half.
Well, those odds appear to be getting greater as time goes on here in the US.
As a reminder, it is pretty unlikely that your house will burn down, or get wasted by a tornado (especially her in the west), yet we all still protect ourselves by carrying homeowners insurance against such things. As my BA 320 and BA 420 instructor used to say "You get insurance to protect against those events that are catastrophic and financially expensive". You do that with vehicle insurance also, although the odds are much lower for that. Carrying a gun for protection is your insurance against something that would be devastating.
Feel free to self insure yourself for any of those events if you so desire.
I guess I need to know more white guys . I know some pretty liberal
White guilters… you know I know a ton of white guys . Many lean left . Not a one walks around with guilt of what ghere forefathers did . Nor have any of them have spoke of reparations, or offered up cash for reparations .
There is a big difference in being observant and cognizant of discrimination vs feeling guilty .
The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed."
You need to look at those Australia numbers closer. The fact that the "violent shootings rate" has gone up, while mathematically true, is misleading. Because that rate is so low that the increase is almost insignificant, and it's a tiny fraction of what we see.
The rate of gun deaths in Australia in 2019 (last year I can find complete data for) was 0.90 per 100,000. That's up from 0.79 in 2017, which was the lowest year. That 0.90 represents 229 gun deaths nationwide, for the year. The US, in 2019, had 39,707 firearms deaths, a rate of something near 13 per 100,000. We had more people killed by guns in a 3-day weekend than Australia had all year.
Going further, the rate in Australia in 1995 was 2.61 per 100,000. The Port Arthur shooting was in 1996, followed by their reform laws and mandatory buybacks. The rate fell below 2 in 1998, and below 1 by 2011, and has stayed there. The rate of gun suicides is 1/3 of what it was - 2.15 in 1995, fell below 1 by 2003, and stayed there. 0.7 in 2019. The rate of overall suicides went down too, although not by as much - which just shows that if people really want to kill themselves, they'll find a way.
Still further...you know how many "mass shootings" Australia has had since their buyback program? One, in 2019 (there were two more times where family members killed each other, but those are typically not counted as "mass shootings"). The one incident had a body count of 4, which is typically the minimum threshold for a mass shooting.
I don't disagree with the rest of what you said, but the Australian program worked for Australia. But, they've got a lot less people, a lot less guns, and don't have 250 years of a gun-toting tradition. A buyback program might make a dent here, especially in the suicide rate, but it couldn't be mandatory. The problem is bigger that just the guns...although it wouldn't be a bad idea to actually enforce the rules we have instead of creating new ones.
Not sure where you live, but in the Tacoma area armed robbery and shootings are somewhat common in popular areas. Count your blessings I guess if you don’t live in a place where you have to have that in the back of your mind.
A
anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls
Guest
Distance is one dimensional, essentially a straight line.
Area is two dimensional, something like squaring 208.7ft to make an acre.
Volume is three dimensional, like the sun could fit 1.3 million earths inside of it.
Area is two dimensional, something like squaring 208.7ft to make an acre.
Volume is three dimensional, like the sun could fit 1.3 million earths inside of it.
