Another Shooting

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,539
Reaction score
3,295
LIke others have mentioned, I do think these mass shootings are a symptom. A bloody, horrific, fucked up symptom at that. It's been touched upon with talks about our cultural slide, lack of morals, the rise of single parent homes, more traumatic home life, etc. All of that needs to be corrected, not just for the sake of reduction in mass shootings, but for us as a whole in general. This country needs to find morals again. It needs to embrace two parents (I don't even care about the gender). It needs to find a lot of answers.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,393
The problem is that AR-15 owners will tell you the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle, and technically they're right... this doesn't make them any less lethal or less efficient at killing humans when you put a drum magazine on them and go into a crowd, but that point gets lost in the 2nd Amendment debate.

The 2nd Amendment is outdated, period. But it's never going to change, because people think their AR-15's can protect them from a hypothetical tyrannical government, for some reason, or that their weapons will be useful if we get invaded by a foreign power.

Spoiler Alert: If a foreign power is prepared enough to defeat or bypass our military on our homeland, your guns aren't going to matter either way.

I don't know...given the strength of our military it would be hard to imagine a scenario where someone bests us at present anyway, so this makes for a weird scenario...but I would like to think that if a foreign power does manage to beat us at home you would think that guerrilla style tactics combined with the sheer number of guns in circulation here would make it impossible for someone to completely subjugate this country. You can bet one thing for sure...we're not going to make it easy on them. We're talking full resistance movement and a lot of damn casualties on both sides.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
I don't know...given the strength of our military it would be hard to imagine a scenario where someone bests us at present anyway, so this makes for a weird scenario...but I would like to think that if a foreign power does manage to beat us at home you would think that guerrilla style tactics combined with the sheer number of guns in circulation here would make it impossible for someone to completely subjugate this country. You can bet one thing for sure...we're not going to make it easy on them. We're talking full resistance movement and a lot of damn casualties on both sides.

My point is more that if someone lands on our soil and we are relying on citizens with guns, the foreign power has technological advantages that will make armed civilians irrelevant anyway, since they made our military irrelevant through whatever means got them here.

It's a hypothetical, but it's an illustration of why the 2nd Amendment is so out of date, IMO... because the future is now, and there are weapons and technology in this world that would render civilians helpless, regardless of what they think they could do with their guns.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,948
Reaction score
11,228
My point is more that if someone lands on our soil and we are relying on citizens with guns, the foreign power has technological advantages that will make armed civilians irrelevant anyway, since they made our military irrelevant through whatever means got them here.

It's a hypothetical, but it's an illustration of why the 2nd Amendment is so out of date, IMO... because the future is now, and there are weapons and technology in this world that would render civilians helpless, regardless of what they think they could do with their guns.

Then you have things like the Bundy standoff....
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,071
LIke others have mentioned, I do think these mass shootings are a symptom. A bloody, horrific, fucked up symptom at that. It's been touched upon with talks about our cultural slide, lack of morals, the rise of single parent homes, more traumatic home life, etc. All of that needs to be corrected, not just for the sake of reduction in mass shootings, but for us as a whole in general. This country needs to find morals again. It needs to embrace two parents (I don't even care about the gender). It needs to find a lot of answers.

Well stated.


I don't know...given the strength of our military it would be hard to imagine a scenario where someone bests us at present anyway, so this makes for a weird scenario...but I would like to think that if a foreign power does manage to beat us at home you would think that guerrilla style tactics combined with the sheer number of guns in circulation here would make it impossible for someone to completely subjugate this country. You can bet one thing for sure...we're not going to make it easy on them. We're talking full resistance movement and a lot of damn casualties on both sides.

If there is ever a conflict, it won't be on the ground. It will be from behind a control desk with buttons and joy sticks. Besides they would have to wipe out our navy before they could get on our shores.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,071
It's a hypothetical, but it's an illustration of why the 2nd Amendment is so out of date.

Agree. When the 2nd was written, there was no real law and order as we know it today. The law was sparse and civilians needed to protect themselves from immediate danger (thieves, native americans, wild animals).
 

dublinirish

Everestt Gholstonson
Messages
27,326
Reaction score
13,091
LIke others have mentioned, I do think these mass shootings are a symptom. A bloody, horrific, fucked up symptom at that. It's been touched upon with talks about our cultural slide, lack of morals, the rise of single parent homes, more traumatic home life, etc. All of that needs to be corrected, not just for the sake of reduction in mass shootings, but for us as a whole in general. This country needs to find morals again. It needs to embrace two parents (I don't even care about the gender). It needs to find a lot of answers.

you forgot scary movies and video games
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
It's all so sad. I agree with the bolded. They will find another way, but I think it's time to ban assault type weapons. Most states don't allow hunting with them so the only other option is target practice. Home security? There are plenty of guns that work just fine. I'm a proponent of gun ownership, but I'm having a hard time justifying assault rifles.

Prayers for all those who died and their families.

Assault rifles were essentially banned in 1986. 6 years before I was born.
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
Interesting that the MSM hasn’t given attention to the mass killings over the weekend in Chicago like they have in San Antonio.

If we blamed a politician for every massacre, then Obama would be responsible for the cops killed in Dallas
Bernie would be responsible for the congressional shooting
Trump would be responsible for El Paso, Christ Church & others that copied the same manifesto of Christ Church
Elizabeth Warren would be responsible for the Dayton massacre
Mayor Emmanuel would be responsible for the 7 murders in Chicago this past weekend.

Of course, none of those aforementioned pols called for violence & cannot be held responsible for the killings but since one of them happens to be Trump, then it’s all his fault. Can the MSM & public at large at least be consistent if they’re going to blame the political affiliation of the shooter(s)? I don’t agree w/ that blame...but at least be consistent.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
Interesting that the MSM hasn’t given attention to the mass killings over the weekend in Chicago like they have in San Antonio.

If we blamed a politician for every massacre, then Obama would be responsible for the cops killed in Dallas
Bernie would be responsible for the congressional shooting
Trump would be responsible for El Paso, Christ Church & others that copied the same manifesto of Christ Church
Elizabeth Warren would be responsible for the Dayton massacre
Mayor Emmanuel would be responsible for the 7 murders in Chicago this past weekend.

Of course, none of those aforementioned pols called for violence & cannot be held responsible for the killings but since one of them happens to be Trump, then it’s all his fault. Can the MSM & public at large at least be consistent if they’re going to blame the political affiliation of the shooter(s)? I don’t agree w/ that blame...but at least be consistent.

They arent capable of that. Violence is ALWAYS either right wing groups feeling empowered by GOP" or "Right wing groups lash out at absence of GOP power." If it was neither of those things, then "it's time to have a conversation about gun control" or something.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
It is too late for gun control to have any effect anyways. The problem is the sheer amount of guns available now.

I think the arguement of "even without guns these people would find ways to carry out their business" is a little short sighted. A guy with a knife is taking out 1 maybe 2 people max. A truck driven into a crowd maybe a few more?
Yes they will find a way to harm someone else. No the death rate will not be the same or higher.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I don't think of the impact of gun violence in the same way as those who discuss politics, blaming, identify cultural factors or the usual predictable discussions.

We also have plenty of handgun violence with multiple victims but that's often between some who know each other.
However, when someone full of hate for people he doesn't even know decides to use a weapon invented for the battlefield, it's about what that does to the human body. In a typical handgun injury, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments and an X-ray would show a thin, generally straight, grey line

With a semi-automatic weapon as an AR-15 or AK-47 firing at a round a second, the high velocity bullet imparts a tremendous amount of kinetic energy into the body creating a cavitation with such force that everything is blown to the sides. The exit wound created by the force not the bullet is two, three, four times bigger than any handgun wound. The bullet fragments stay in the body creating their own damages.

Such an impact to the brain or near any vascular organs in the chest is instantly fatal. If a bullet from a high-muzzle velocity weapon hits the abdomen, for instance, the air-filled organs like the intestines and bladder explode. Only pieces are left from the cavitation created by the shock its velocity. Only those people who did not damage to the abdominal aorta, which delivers all the blood to the lower body from the heart, make it to the trauma surgeon. But there is still a lot of blood, tissue and remains of organs and it's a race to stop all the bleeding, replace blood and fluids, clamp off bladder and intestines that are salvageable, evacuate all that and intestinal contents that would be a source for sepsis and, in a female, the reproductive organs. Traumatic injuries to the urinary system and the spine are possible.

In a semi-solid but very vascular organ like the liver, the bullet creates an expanding hole but without the explosion seen in organs more full of air. A high-muzzle weapon shatters hard bone into hundreds of microscopic pieces, in a way that cannot be repaired. A surgeon needs to essentially clean out the bone that has been struck and remove it from the body; it’s now a worthless tissue. With weapons engineered to fire once a second, a person may have two or three of these rounds enter their body in close proximity. Handguns are different.

When someone comes into the ER with that type of damage from a high-velocity bullet, the first surgery is to keep them alive, but multiple surgeries, when they are more stable, are usually required. In El Paso, one father has had five surgeries so far. Two people that made to the trauma surgeon are now counted among the dead with injuries too extensive after initially surviving the first surgery. Every domestic terrorist wants to also inflict the non-physical injuries as well as maximize the death toll of humans he never met but on whom he has focused his hate.

"The guy set off the fire alarm so everybody could run out and he could see them to shoot them and all he kept saying is, 'I'm gonna get you,'" Norma Coca said.

"He was taunting them, he was telling everybody to come out," Don Coca said.

Jessica's husband, Guillermo, has undergone five surgeries and is now in a medically induced coma.

"It's just hard when you see your kids and grandkids and the kids say they 'saw my mommy and my daddy get shot and a lady just died right in front of me, grandma.' And it's, it's hard. Just to see her, she just keeps reliving the day over and over. She can't sleep, she shakes, wakes up crying and, my daughter, it's just hard," Norma Coca said.
(Source)

Who uses that type of weapon and ammunition even on an animal? We each struggle to understand what type of person would do that to another human being even as we know it's realistic that there may be three to five more of these type of mass killings by these domestic terrorists in the next twelve months.
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
It is too late for gun control to have any effect anyways. The problem is the sheer amount of guns available now.

I think the arguement of "even without guns these people would find ways to carry out their business" is a little short sighted. A guy with a knife is taking out 1 maybe 2 people max. A truck driven into a crowd maybe a few more?
Yes they will find a way to harm someone else. No the death rate will not be the same or higher.


Yep. Trucks will only hurt a few more than a lunatic with a knife.

I think the families of 86 dead and 400+ wounded in Nice, France would disagree with that statement. That's more than any shooting in American history. Jesus, this only happened in 2016.

I don't think of the impact of gun violence in the same way as those who discuss politics, blaming, identify cultural factors or the usual predictable discussions.

We also have plenty of handgun violence with multiple victims but that's often between some who know each other.
However, when someone full of hate for people he doesn't even know decides to use a weapon invented for the battlefield, it's about what that does to the human body. In a typical handgun injury, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments and an X-ray would show a thin, generally straight, grey line

With a semi-automatic weapon as an AR-15 or AK-47 firing at a round a second, the high velocity bullet imparts a tremendous amount of kinetic energy into the body creating a cavitation with such force that everything is blown to the sides. The exit wound created by the force not the bullet is two, three, four times bigger than any handgun wound. The bullet fragments stay in the body creating their own damages.

Such an impact to the brain or near any vascular organs in the chest is instantly fatal. If a bullet from a high-muzzle velocity weapon hits the abdomen, for instance, the air-filled organs like the intestines and bladder explode. Only pieces are left from the cavitation created by the shock its velocity. Only those people who did not damage to the abdominal aorta, which delivers all the blood to the lower body from the heart, make it to the trauma surgeon. But there is still a lot of blood, tissue and remains of organs and it's a race to stop all the bleeding, replace blood and fluids, clamp off bladder and intestines that are salvageable, evacuate all that and intestinal contents that would be a source for sepsis and, in a female, the reproductive organs. Traumatic injuries to the urinary system and the spine are possible.

In a semi-solid but very vascular organ like the liver, the bullet creates an expanding hole but without the explosion seen in organs more full of air. A high-muzzle weapon shatters hard bone into hundreds of microscopic pieces, in a way that cannot be repaired. A surgeon needs to essentially clean out the bone that has been struck and remove it from the body; it’s now a worthless tissue. With weapons engineered to fire once a second, a person may have two or three of these rounds enter their body in close proximity. Handguns are different.

When someone comes into the ER with that type of damage from a high-velocity bullet, the first surgery is to keep them alive, but multiple surgeries, when they are more stable, are usually required. In El Paso, one father has had five surgeries so far. Two people that made to the trauma surgeon are now counted among the dead with injuries too extensive after initially surviving the first surgery. Every domestic terrorist wants to also inflict the non-physical injuries as well as maximize the death toll of humans he never met but on whom he has focused his hate.

(Source)

Who uses that type of weapon and ammunition even on an animal? We each struggle to understand what type of person would do that to another human being even as we know it's realistic that there may be three to five more of these type of mass killings by these domestic terrorists in the next twelve months.

Who uses semi-automatic rifles? Is this a real fucking question? You sound like an idiot. They've been commercially available for over 100 years.

A .223 round is not some monstrosity of a round. It's a pretty standard rifle round. Not really sure what smaller round one is going to use when deer hunting.

Can these guns kill people? Absolutely. Turns out people are made of flesh and bone like every other creature. But to say "OH MY GOODNESS THESE GUNS FIRE BULLETS THAT SHATTER BONES THEY HIT" and other hysterics like that aren't warranted in any way, shape, or form. What did you think a bullet does?

There's an unfortunate number of lunatics who get their hands on these tools and use them for genuinely evil purposes, but the number of actual dumbass people who pretend to be surprised at what guns do every time some people get shot is much more baffling.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,933
Reaction score
6,160
Who uses that type of weapon and ammunition even on an animal?

For hunting, you want something that lethal. The vast majority of hunters hate the idea of an animal lingering and suffering. They want the kill to be virtually instantaneous. A slower and less powerful round can inflict a mortal wound, but not a quick death. Something like a high velocity .223, if it hits the target area, is usually a quick, painless kill.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,071
Assault rifles were essentially banned in 1986. 6 years before I was born.

For clarification "assault like" type of weapons. Those that can be modified in a number of ways to provide results similar to assault rifles.

For hunting, you want something that lethal. The vast majority of hunters hate the idea of an animal lingering and suffering. They want the kill to be virtually instantaneous. A slower and less powerful round can inflict a mortal wound, but not a quick death. Something like a high velocity .223, if it hits the target area, is usually a quick, painless kill.

Agree about the ammo used. Just don't see the need for a semi-automatic or assault like type of weapon when hunting.
 
Last edited:

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,071
It is too late for gun control to have any effect anyways. The problem is the sheer amount of guns available now.

I think the arguement of "even without guns these people would find ways to carry out their business" is a little short sighted. A guy with a knife is taking out 1 maybe 2 people max. A truck driven into a crowd maybe a few more?
Yes they will find a way to harm someone else. No the death rate will not be the same or higher.

bombs?
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
I think everyone should just go back to single-shot weapons like when the 2nd Amendment was written, tbh.
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
Yep. Trucks will only hurt a few more than a lunatic with a knife.

I think the families of 86 dead and 400+ wounded in Nice, France would disagree with that statement. That's more than any shooting in American history. Jesus, this only happened in 2016.



Who uses semi-automatic rifles? Is this a real fucking question? You sound like an idiot. They've been commercially available for over 100 years.

A .223 round is not some monstrosity of a round. It's a pretty standard rifle round. Not really sure what smaller round one is going to use when deer hunting.

Can these guns kill people? Absolutely. Turns out people are made of flesh and bone like every other creature. But to say "OH MY GOODNESS THESE GUNS FIRE BULLETS THAT SHATTER BONES THEY HIT" and other hysterics like that aren't warranted in any way, shape, or form. What did you think a bullet does?

There's an unfortunate number of lunatics who get their hands on these tools and use them for genuinely evil purposes, but the number of actual dumbass people who pretend to be surprised at what guns do every time some people get shot is much more baffling.

Bingo. It’s folks who don’t know anything about guns (other than what they see on tv, movies) & have never hunted or farmed that make that argument. I’m no expert either but I have friends who hunt & farm that laugh at folks who make the arguments we see here. Go try to eradicate wild hogs from ruining your farmland w/ traps and see how successful you are. I’m told the better solution is an AR-15.
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
I don't think of the impact of gun violence in the same way as those who discuss politics, blaming, identify cultural factors or the usual predictable discussions.

We also have plenty of handgun violence with multiple victims but that's often between some who know each other.
However, when someone full of hate for people he doesn't even know decides to use a weapon invented for the battlefield, it's about what that does to the human body. In a typical handgun injury, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments and an X-ray would show a thin, generally straight, grey line

With a semi-automatic weapon as an AR-15 or AK-47 firing at a round a second, the high velocity bullet imparts a tremendous amount of kinetic energy into the body creating a cavitation with such force that everything is blown to the sides. The exit wound created by the force not the bullet is two, three, four times bigger than any handgun wound. The bullet fragments stay in the body creating their own damages.

Such an impact to the brain or near any vascular organs in the chest is instantly fatal. If a bullet from a high-muzzle velocity weapon hits the abdomen, for instance, the air-filled organs like the intestines and bladder explode. Only pieces are left from the cavitation created by the shock its velocity. Only those people who did not damage to the abdominal aorta, which delivers all the blood to the lower body from the heart, make it to the trauma surgeon. But there is still a lot of blood, tissue and remains of organs and it's a race to stop all the bleeding, replace blood and fluids, clamp off bladder and intestines that are salvageable, evacuate all that and intestinal contents that would be a source for sepsis and, in a female, the reproductive organs. Traumatic injuries to the urinary system and the spine are possible.

In a semi-solid but very vascular organ like the liver, the bullet creates an expanding hole but without the explosion seen in organs more full of air. A high-muzzle weapon shatters hard bone into hundreds of microscopic pieces, in a way that cannot be repaired. A surgeon needs to essentially clean out the bone that has been struck and remove it from the body; it’s now a worthless tissue. With weapons engineered to fire once a second, a person may have two or three of these rounds enter their body in close proximity. Handguns are different.

When someone comes into the ER with that type of damage from a high-velocity bullet, the first surgery is to keep them alive, but multiple surgeries, when they are more stable, are usually required. In El Paso, one father has had five surgeries so far. Two people that made to the trauma surgeon are now counted among the dead with injuries too extensive after initially surviving the first surgery. Every domestic terrorist wants to also inflict the non-physical injuries as well as maximize the death toll of humans he never met but on whom he has focused his hate.

(Source)

Who uses that type of weapon and ammunition even on an animal? We each struggle to understand what type of person would do that to another human being even as we know it's realistic that there may be three to five more of these type of mass killings by these domestic terrorists in the next twelve months.

Here is yet another factor that wasn’t the case decades ago:

7,213,599 kids on psychiatric Drugs
3,655,472 kids on ADHD Drugs
2,100,315 kids on antidepressants
1,194,805 kids on antipsychotics
1,445,509 kids on anti-anxiety

EBNRDzSXkAEppBc
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
For clarification "assault like" type of weapons. Those that can be modified in a number of ways to provide results similar to assault rifles.



Agree about the ammo used. Just don't see the need for a semi-automatic or assault like type of weapon when hunting.

Similar results to an assault rifle? What the fuck are you even talking about? A gun that shoots a bullet when you squeeze the trigger?

If you are suggesting a ban on semi-automatic guns bro you'd be about 100+ years too late.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,071
Similar results to an assault rifle? What the fuck are you even talking about? A gun that shoots a bullet when you squeeze the trigger?

If you are suggesting a ban on semi-automatic guns bro you'd be about 100+ years too late.

Take your blinders off. I support the 2nd. Have hunted many times and still own hounds to hunt with. You don't need an AR-15 to kill a deer, elk, boar, bear or mountain lion. There are plenty of long rifles that will do the trick.

One of my friends is the state rep for the NRA. When I asked him about the best gun for home protection, he didn't suggest a handgun or an AR-15. He suggested a pump. His comment, "Anyone that breaks into your house will know right away what that sound is. They won't stick around to get a look at the make and model."

There's no reason some reasonable gun measures can't be put in place. The solution to fixing gun violence is implementing numerous changes.

The NRA is afraid that if they give an inch they will lose a mile.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,948
Reaction score
11,228
Take your blinders off. I support the 2nd. Have hunted many times and still own hounds to hunt with. You don't need an AR-15 to kill a deer, elk, boar, bear or mountain lion. There are plenty of long rifles that will do the trick.

One of my friends is the state rep for the NRA. When I asked him about the best gun for home protection, he didn't suggest a handgun or an AR-15. He suggested a pump. His comment, "Anyone that breaks into your house will know right away what that sound is. They won't stick around to get a look at the make and model."

There's no reason some reasonable gun measures can't be put in place. The solution to fixing gun violence is implementing numerous changes.

The NRA is afraid that if they give an inch they will lose a mile.

Agree with every here, and I understand the last point too... I used to be pretty left leaning on this issue and still may be considered left of center but the current dems have given the NRa and the right zero reason to expect anything but the bolded.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
Take your blinders off. I support the 2nd. Have hunted many times and still own hounds to hunt with. You don't need an AR-15 to kill a deer, elk, boar, bear or mountain lion. There are plenty of long rifles that will do the trick.

One of my friends is the state rep for the NRA. When I asked him about the best gun for home protection, he didn't suggest a handgun or an AR-15. He suggested a pump. His comment, "Anyone that breaks into your house will know right away what that sound is. They won't stick around to get a look at the make and model."

There's no reason some reasonable gun measures can't be put in place. The solution to fixing gun violence is implementing numerous changes.

The NRA is afraid that if they give an inch they will lose a mile.

I'm not advocating for using a AR-15 for hunting. I'm saying it's my right and yours to own one(or fifty).

If you want to hunt with it, cool! If you want to prep for the apocalypse with it, cool! If you want to join some militia out in idaho with it, cool!

If your idea of freedom is telling some law abiding dude he cant own a semi-automatic rifle because a couple hundred people a year get murdered by them then you can go fuck yourself.

The NRA and Pro-Gun folks have given plenty of inches over the years. I need like ten grand if I'm ever going to own a machine gun and need to pass a thorough background check.

We already have plenty of gun laws. Maybe parents, friends, family, and local authorities should shoulder some of the blame they apply to Congress.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,539
Reaction score
3,295
Take your blinders off. I support the 2nd. Have hunted many times and still own hounds to hunt with. You don't need an AR-15 to kill a deer, elk, boar, bear or mountain lion. There are plenty of long rifles that will do the trick.

One of my friends is the state rep for the NRA. When I asked him about the best gun for home protection, he didn't suggest a handgun or an AR-15. He suggested a pump. His comment, "Anyone that breaks into your house will know right away what that sound is. They won't stick around to get a look at the make and model."

There's no reason some reasonable gun measures can't be put in place. The solution to fixing gun violence is implementing numerous changes.

The NRA is afraid that if they give an inch they will lose a mile.

I'm not advocating for using a AR-15 for hunting. I'm saying it's my right and yours to own one(or fifty).

If you want to hunt with it, cool! If you want to prep for the apocalypse with it, cool! If you want to join some militia out in idaho with it, cool!

If your idea of freedom is telling some law abiding dude he cant own a semi-automatic rifle because a couple hundred people a year get murdered by them then you can go fuck yourself.

The NRA and Pro-Gun folks have given plenty of inches over the years. I need like ten grand if I'm ever going to own a machine gun and need to pass a thorough background check.

We already have plenty of gun laws. Maybe parents, friends, family, and local authorities should shoulder some of the blame they apply to Congress.

wJlucY0.gif
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I'm not advocating for using a AR-15 for hunting. I'm saying it's my right and yours to own one(or fifty).

If you want to hunt with it, cool! If you want to prep for the apocalypse with it, cool! If you want to join some militia out in idaho with it, cool!

If your idea of freedom is telling some law abiding dude he cant own a semi-automatic rifle because a couple hundred people a year get murdered by them then you can go fuck yourself.

The NRA and Pro-Gun folks have given plenty of inches over the years. I need like ten grand if I'm ever going to own a machine gun and need to pass a thorough background check.

We already have plenty of gun laws. Maybe parents, friends, family, and local authorities should shoulder some of the blame they apply to Congress.

Who uses semi-automatic rifles? Is this a real fucking question? You sound like an idiot. They've been commercially available for over 100 years.

A .223 round is not some monstrosity of a round. It's a pretty standard rifle round. Not really sure what smaller round one is going to use when deer hunting.

Can these guns kill people? Absolutely. Turns out people are made of flesh and bone like every other creature. But to say "OH MY GOODNESS THESE GUNS FIRE BULLETS THAT SHATTER BONES THEY HIT" and other hysterics like that aren't warranted in any way, shape, or form. What did you think a bullet does?

There's an unfortunate number of lunatics who get their hands on these tools and use them for genuinely evil purposes, but the number of actual dumbass people who pretend to be surprised at what guns do every time some people get shot is much more baffling.
Today 12:24 AM
Sure, these guys are losers, live in fantasy worlds, stoked by self-righteous words, looking for a cause, something that gives their lives some sort of meaning and someone else to blame for their existence. They aren't Americans who acknowledge we each have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They have no religion, certainly not Christian or Catholic. Nihilists. Anarchists. Who else would want join one of those South Texas militias prepping for the day the government will take away their guns, filing themselves with anger and hate and blotting out the reality of what they do to Americans? So, you know what this kind of weapon, high-velocity ballistics and ammo does and what it did to those who went shopping with their families. You're not one of the "actual dumbass people" who go into "hysterics" and who would take away your freedoms and "sound like an idiot". You are someone who would report these losers to authorities blathering about killing other Americans before they act, right? That is what holds us together as a law-abiding society and doesn't leave these festering pockets of people who do deserve our thoughts and prayers. We have an anti-culture out there like an abscess which is walled off by the silence of the non-participants around them. The change is that they can now communicate with like-minded pockets who envision themselves as death dealers.
 
Last edited:

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
The NRA is afraid that if they give an inch they will lose a mile.

So is Planned Parenthood when it comes to abortion. They may agree that banning certain parts of abortion make sense but they realize it’s a foot in the door for elimination of any abortion so they can’t budge.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
Sure, these guys are losers, live in fantasy worlds, stoked by self-righteous words, looking for a cause, something that gives their lives some sort of meaning and someone else to blame for their existence. They aren't Americans who acknowledge we each have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They have no religion, certainly not Christian or Catholic. Nihilists. Anarchists. Who else would want join one of those South Texas militias prepping for the day the government will take away their guns, filing themselves with anger and hate and blotting out the reality of what they do to Americans? So, you know what this kind of weapon, high-velocity ballistics and ammo does and what it did to those who went shopping with their families. You're not one of the "actual dumbass people" who go into "hysterics" and who would take away your freedoms and "sound like an idiot". You are someone who would report these losers to authorities blathering about killing other Americans before they act, right? That is what holds us together as a law-abiding society and doesn't leave these festering pockets of people who do deserve our thoughts and prayers. We have an anti-culture out there like an abscess which is walled off by the silence of the non-participants around them. The change is that they can now communicate with like-minded pockets who envision themselves as death dealers.

I'm 100% okay with the 'Preppers' and militia-esque orgs. But yeah if they are making threats or showing signs that they are going to do something bad, people should absolutely bring that to the authorities. Problem is I dont associate with that crowd for obvious reasons, they generally have friends, family, or neighbors who know something is "off" about them.

A prime example would be this weirdo in Dayton. Some ex girlfriend says he was showing her mass shooting videos on their first date. That's weird. People need to speak up more and hopefully friends and family can help these mostly young men move in a more positive direction.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Yep. Trucks will only hurt a few more than a lunatic with a knife.

I think the families of 86 dead and 400+ wounded in Nice, France would disagree with that statement. That's more than any shooting in American history. Jesus, this only happened in 2016.



Who uses semi-automatic rifles? Is this a real fucking question? You sound like an idiot. They've been commercially available for over 100 years.

A .223 round is not some monstrosity of a round. It's a pretty standard rifle round. Not really sure what smaller round one is going to use when deer hunting.

Can these guns kill people? Absolutely. Turns out people are made of flesh and bone like every other creature. But to say "OH MY GOODNESS THESE GUNS FIRE BULLETS THAT SHATTER BONES THEY HIT" and other hysterics like that aren't warranted in any way, shape, or form. What did you think a bullet does?

There's an unfortunate number of lunatics who get their hands on these tools and use them for genuinely evil purposes, but the number of actual dumbass people who pretend to be surprised at what guns do every time some people get shot is much more baffling.

Nice, France was my first thought too.
 
Top