Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Have you heard yourself? You are crying over a joke. Grow up and stop crying for someone else.
so says the one who started the thread LOL
Crenshaw can pass laws. Steven can spread false information. One is worse than the other. Do I need to say more?
more selective moral outrage
So you are for speech for consequence not for freedom of speech?
wow, you don't think speech has consequences even if it's protected as free speech? what planet do you live on exactly?
Hypocritical coming from a liar and a party which put feelings over facts.
you are so confused I can't possibly untangle your mixed up thoughts.
the Left thinks there's such a thing as hate speech because it makes people feel bad etc
you earn a quote
"KingLaddy01
I don't have time to decode your autism. Either start making sense or do not post at all."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You criticize Crowder for a sexist joke then I ask you to do the same to SNL for what they did but you won't because you've labeled Crowder a political commentator instead of a comedian, even a political comedian, as if being one or the other makes any difference. You won't citizen SNL because they are a comedy even though everyone would agree what they said was far more egregious. The selective moral outrage you show is very sad, you are blinded by your ideology.
Yes I find what SNL had said and done far more offensive than Crowder's statement, but not once did I ever say they didn't have the right to say it. Do all leftist distort the truth and lie or just you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
oh those peaceful, tolerant liberals, with their rioting, death threats, assaults, harassing and shouting out people trying to talk, so tolerant. How many liberal speakers have had their gigs canceled because of conservative protesters? I'm thinking of a number, one hint, it's < or possibly = to 1.
sure seems like trying to paint Crowder as some kind of influential political commentator is a good way to try and censor his speech, but the left wouldn't do that now would they.....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You asked for my specific dislike for him.
where did I ask you any such thing?
Who was asking about what I thought about someone not relevant to the topic at hand?
you took issue with a comedian making a sexist joke which bothered you enough to start a topic about, I wanted to know if a liberal tv show that has been on since the 70s making fun of a wounded war veteran who lost an eye and had other injuries was on par or how you felt about it since you never bothered to make a thread about that happening and you still haven't said it was horrible or denounced it in anyway after what 2 or 3 times of me bringing it up? rather hypocritical of you.
The guy is far-right figure and won't denounce for a comedy skits doing what they do. People don't go on SNL for the latest breaking news they go for the comedy. Steven Crowder is a political commenter when he spends most of his time talking about the news instead of making jokes.
far-right what a meaning less label, he calls himself a comedian and identifies as one, how many political commentators post video drinking games? which was what they were doing in that video.
People watch SNL and Crowder for the same reasons, entertainment.
No you are the hypocrite and you can't even admit it when I called you out. You make excuses for Steven Crowder but not for SNL when they were making a joke. It is called the special pleading fallacy when you have different standards for different people.
I'm not making an excuse, I interpreted it as a joke given all the women, gays, trans etc he's interview in the past. But if you want to equate what he said to making jokes about wounded, disabled vets as being the same thing, we obviously have vastly different moral compasses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
LOL love it, love to see cocky people fail, they just aren't nice and deserve to fall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I personally find them very entertaining. Watching the smug, self righteous, self important no it alls being embarrassed is just something I like. The lack of humility by these p.o.s. people makes their fall that much more pleasurable. This won't change the behavior, i know that, but still for me it's entertaining. If they or anyone is serious about idea exchanging, sharing or discussing they wouldn't behave as they do. Pulling for the underdog is very American and so is watching these kinds of people fall imo, or hoping they will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
as someone said (can you guess whom? In another one of their threads) " I think they like confirming their biases not watching something they disagree with."
then he went on to blather something about hypocrisy, very ironic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
you made O.P. and topic neither of which had anything to do with his change my mind videos, in fact you specifically gave time points of a video which is very specific and again had nothing and no mention of the change my mind videos. So you've gone from be offended by a sexist joke he made and wanted everyone to watch to now bring up his change my mind which he has done on many different topics. Pivot, change direction from the original post/topic of his sexist joke (a specific thing) to a general vague criticism/attack on his various change my mind videos.
and again you won't denounce making fun of liberal tv making fun of a veteran wounded in combat with a permanent disability.
This is what hypocrisy is, you've shown a great example of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
so the new pivot is his change my mind videos, well ok, where are the goal posts going to be moved next?
and a pivot away from liberal tv making fun of someone's injury/disability with an unrelated video about a tweet he made. I missed your threads of your outrage over that. rock on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm not sure what kind of sheltered life or bubble you live in, but there are TONS of youtube clips from comedian specials that aired on TV with much more offensive statements and language.
What about the guy on Saturday night live that made fun of the congressman who lost an eye in combat? What do you think about that?
you are sounding like a snowflake, don't be so fragile and thin skinned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I've already quoted what each one said and explained why I said what I did, go back an read it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
ah yes some comedians playing a drinking game, yup you nailed it your got him because he's not known for making comments like that ever before LOL
these attempted attack posts on conservatives is elementary school level. You see grown ups do make jokes like that, joke as in they don't really mean what they are saying. The leftist don't have a sense of humor because they can't because of their hypersensitive emotional states. Just relax and don't take
this stuff so seriously, it will make you happier. WSS?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm not sure how or why you didn't comprehend what I said. My comment was describing the person making the video who's bias is obvious and makes false statements, that is all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
you are really on the roll here, was there a video you were referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I stopped watching it as soon as the guy started with "Ben clearly said this" when in fact he did not, he's full of b.s. sorry.
Shaprio clearly says he's not a huge fan of "naturalistic" explanations, he says I think you can make an argument for it. Then this guy comes back on and says Shaprio "clearly says he's against naturalistic explanations." Which he did not so....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
there's plenty of videos of people being interviewed, claiming something was done or said by the likes of Obama etc, after they readily say how great it was they are told that in fact it was Trump, then all of a sudden it's terrible. There's some serious pathology to this behavior.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
yes but are they loosing money? if advertisers etc are still paying them and aren't concerned about ratings then they don't matter. they will put out the "news" that advertisers will pay for.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
since they realized that's what sells
In the beginning there was Howard Stern aka the shock jock. And thus began the era of sensationalism. Toss in some Jerry Springer and the audience wants more and more. We've reached the pinnacle of legal extremes. but it does still sell. infotainment has realized this and is just cashing in because people are buying it. There's little to no down side of being wrong any more, it doesn't matter in a negative way. This is a new religion for many people, they can't wait for the next big anti Trump story to come out, doesn't matter if it's later proven totally false. Perhaps their conspiracy theories are as flamboyant as Alex Jones, but they are still in the same boat none the less. Which makes them hypocritical when they criticize Jones.
Real life and death gladiator fights probably aren't too far off, have to keep the masses entertained, they get bored quickly.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
once all the entitlement offers are exhausted, what then? I mean they've gotten to the point of "reparations" Government housing for all? mandatory? except for the elites of course. Just like Obama care, they didn't want any part of the crap. All the garbage they propose is for the rest of us, not them. that's what it takes to make a president great apparently, empty promises of more entitlements and free stuff. Lower unemployment and taxes don't matter to those elites. Unemployment and taxes will never affect Trump and yet he thinks it's important. His family will never be poor unless they somehow mess it up. So these things he is fixing will never bother him or his family. Which then asks they question who is he doing all this for? The rest of us.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
ah yes those mystical "experts" I got more of my own money from the I.R.S. this year, about double last year..... These "experts" don't pay my wages or my bills so fk them. Except for the bump stock ban Trump isn't trying to infringe on my rights. I could go on but I'm not expert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
guy goes up to a librarian and asks if they have any books on paranoia, the librarian whispers......they're right behind you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
was it about weight loss? I didn't look at it, because for me personally a fatty would kill it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
yeah I would totally agree with that, the modern American way of life is being coddled and entitlements. They demand more but aren't willing to work for it, where as many of these legal immigrants are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Perhaps I'm being unrealistic in that after all this time, those type of people would be such a small fraction as to be inconsequential. Thinking on it, you are right. This is evidenced by the Socialist followers and promoters. Socialism is socialism no matter what catch phrase you try to hide it as. There seems to be a lot of people yearning for their gilded cages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
tools? I've seen many stories of how legal immigrants worked several jobs, usually at a convenient store. Save money and eventually buy their own or start their own business. They come with practically nothings, often non English speaking. Their "tools" are a will to sacrifice and work hard. Everyone has the tools necessary, not everyone is willing to use them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
isn't it true that you have the best chance to work out of poverty in the U.S. than any other country? Seems "rags to riches" is non existent in many countries and rare in others. So many stories of poor people immigrating to the U.S. legally working extremely hard and build successful business which allow their children and future generation of the family to live well. All because of (drum roll) capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
This has always been a thing. But are people catching on and waking up to what it really is, hollow promises. Right now it's being hit pretty hard. More entitlements, handouts and fake accents. But does that work, do people fall for it?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I have a sports car and have NEVER received a speeding ticket, ever, but I have sped, but I've sped in all sorts of vehicles so perhaps it's not the tool but the person? millions 25-30 own what you think it an assault rifle, but yet don't kill people. Tell me how many of those who chose to use an assault rifle wouldn't have accomplished the same thing using a hand gun, shot gun, any other gun or guns since if you look at the stats I don't recall seeing any that didn't have multiple guns, including handguns. You do know some of these sickos have used both the assault rifle and handguns in the sprees, how do you explain that?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
That is, if an inexperienced shooters shoots a gun with a large amount of recoil, there is likely to be a difference in practical firing speed than there is with an experienced shooter who shoots a gun with an insignificant amount of recoil.
as evidenced by the first time shooter videos I posted, that is a definite maybe.
(your video I referenced was the doctor talking about gun shot wounds)
Because bans typically shouldn't be decided on one factor, but on a multitude of factors. For example, basing a ban just on barrel length will include a huge swath of guns which are not considered assault weapons.
a multitude of factors? you want to ban all (or virtually) semi auto rifles which have detachable magazines, those are the criteria you've been using
so a semi auto handgun with a barrel of 15" that shoots a .223 round, banned or not? I've showed you pictures of them before but just as a refresher https://www.itstactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/AR_Pistol_06.jpg
Created:
part 2
Now, on the whole as a country, and as a species, violence among people is going down, globally. (Stephen Pinker wrote a riveting book charting, with likely the best possible evidence that could be gleaned, the more or less liner historical decline of violence throughout space and time.) But these incidents remind us of just how bad things can be, and they reveal that the chain which connects us all is only as strong as our weakest link.The goal of any realistic effort to reduce violence of this or any other kind must be to focus on strengthening the links that connect us, rather than identifying and segregating those links that may -- for whatever reason -- have come to be weaker than others.
That is not to say that I discount the individual culpability of the individual who committed the incident in Florida. I do not. He is absolutely guilty, and absolutely deserving of the full force of our criminal justice system's capability to deliver punishment (other than the death penalty, but that's another issue). But the question remains as to how he got this way, in the first place? What made this kid so fvcked up that he was driven to execute such a godforsaken act of violence at all?
It probably began years before... maybe problems in his childhood, maybe abuse of one kind or another, maybe being bullied at school for any number of reasons and to any conceivable extent... who knows. But the point is that people don't just wake up one day and become mass killers. There are events and experiences in their lives that have to push them to that point, even if some people (e.g., with different brain structures, see generally the Psychopath Inside) may be more or less predisposed to antisocial acts of violence. These people are the weakest links in the chain. They aren't the only weak links, but strengthening the connections we share is the only realistic way to reduce violence of this or any other kind in the society.
Created:
since people don't see to want to read links here you go courtesy of YYW on debate.org
While it may surprise many of you, I agree that no amount of gun control will reduce school shootings. Guns, after all, are not the cause of violence. They are the means by which violence of a particular kind is carried out. There was once a time where I supported gun control legislation, but living where I do now has convinced me of the futility of that venture.
We are not, for example, Australia. Nor are we Japan, or any other country where gun control has seen some success. We are more like Russia, in this respect. Our people and our culture are inextricably linked to firearms. Guns are a part of our culture, even if it would be ideal of some aspects of the culture could be divested from gun culture. There are too many guns in circulation in America, and it is too easy to illegally smuggle guns into the country for there ever to have any hope of real or meaningful gun control regulations to be able to achieve their intended effect. So, any mention of gun control misses the point.
The point at issue is why this particular kind of violence has become so commonplace. The easy explanations abound, of course. How we assess the situation in large part depends on the theory of human nature from which we began our consideration. Collectivists identify fault in the society. Individualists identify fault in the individual. Both, to some degree, have merit. What does not have merit, on the other hand, is the frivolous speculation that pollutes the discourse on this issue. Some blame video games, in the 90s. Social science, however, proved that that speculation was as meritless as it was counterproductive to even discuss. Others blamed rap music, or heavy metal, or whatever. That was equally vain and naive. Worse, many blame guns themselves without even bothering to consider what motivates an individual to visit such wanton violence on innocents.
I think the reason we have such difficulty rationally talking about mass killings of any kind, whether Las Vegas, Fort Hood, Columbine, Sandy Hook, or now this incident in Florida, is that it requires staring into the nexus between human evil and its interaction with the society at large. Recognizing both dimensions to this, as such, is what any real talk on these kinds of events has to focus on. But to take a step back, the point of any real talk on these events must be oriented towards figuring out a way to prevent this from happening again.
In the past I have advanced a theory that the commonalities behind each of these mass shooters suggests a pattern which can serve as a useful framework to understand who it is that is the most likely to perform a mass shooting. The factors are these: (1) male, (2) socially and sexually underperforming, (3) social outcasts (4) who believe that they have been unjustifiably aggrieved by some institution larger than themselves, (5) in such a way that their "pride" or "honor" has been insulted, (6) seek to exercise power against others, (7) so as to demonstrate to observers the extent of what horror they can visit upon the innocent, (8) in retaliation for those perceived grievances.
The set of people who fall within the scope of that framework is obviously over-inclusive, meaning that the individuals who fall within that group will doubtlessly not all perform acts of violence to hurt innocent people. Despite this, there is not a single mass-shooter who has failed to conform to that standard. There are always factors as well, to look for: The people who do these things usually have or experience some aggravating event prior to their committing a mass shooting; they usually demonstrate impulse control issues in one way or another; and they are usually all people who 'lay low' and who 'would not be expected' to do such horrible things. Even still, the best we can do here is identify who might be predisposed to committing such an act of mass violence.
Insofar as that's the case, though, what we can do is try to develop intervention mechanisms where people who are predisposed to violence by exhibiting the foregoing could be counseled, monitored, etc. from time to time. Perhaps state-funded therapy, offered on a voluntary basis, might help channel some of the rage into more productive outlets like self improvement rather than self and societal destruction. Perhaps not doing things like expelling students, or getting them "in the system" but creating a sort of "social rehabilitation" group that functioned like a midnight basketball team, or a YMCA, or some other kind of youth group.
The solutions I would like to see most are all "soft" solutions, rather than hard ones, though. They're the sort of thing that would be designed to prevent violence by preempting the reasons why people are violent in the first place. While it would be hard to measure their impact, even if we could not qualitatively identify all those episodes of wanton violence that were avoided, in the process real good could be brought about.
part 2 next
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
here is an analogy. if you have a sports car, you are more likely to speed than if you don't have a sports car. but, most cars that speed are not sports cars
If I want to speed I need a car. If I had a sports car I might go faster, but whether I go 110 mph or 120 mph it really makes no difference but driving a sports car is probably more fun, however if I was so inclined to do it, didn't have a sports car or access to one I could still do it just fine. Or perhaps a truck, motorcycle etc. Many tools are just as effective as accomplishing your goal, though they might not be as dramatic or flashy, never the less there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
a rifle has a higher percent chance of being used to murder than a non rifle.
Weapons
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
13,164
12,795
12,888
12,253
11,961
Total firearms
8,874
8,653
8,897
8,454
8,124
Handguns
6,115
6,251
6,404
5,782
5,562
Rifles
367
332
298
285
248
is the FBI wrong or are you?
to quote KingLaddy01
I don't have time to decode your autism. Either start making sense or do not post at all.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol
the lemmings and cute and funny aren't they. ahh to be a child again.....
"How do you do it?"
copy and paste my boy, copy and paste
Created:
-->
@dustryder
AR-15 deadliness, it should be made in comparison to handguns.
which again you haven't provided, the video you presented had huge flaws and obvious things not taken into consideration which I pointed out. yet you still deny the realities of ballistic testing.
You used a subset of the mother jones report.
fine use the whole thing and tell me what the numbers say or you can as I suggested just look at the numbers no math required.
Which is factored in the amount of deaths/injuries.
show me
Well the practical difference is a lower rate of effective fire. Whether this actually makes a difference is certainly something that can be tested. However, logically the principal is sound. Do you agree?
if you can explain at what lower or higher rate of fire is/was a factor for any of these murders then perhaps I could agree. But since it depends on the individual the whole thing is silly. So it can't actually be tested. Recoil has no impact on people who are proficient, skilled, whatever thus subjective and individualistic.
How proficient do you have to be where recoil plays little to no part in your accuracy? seem what I mean
but let's say it could, how does that translate to how many wouldn't have been killed?
I.D.P.A. videos prove that well enough.
I didn't draw a line on gun barrel length.
why not? don't you think you should? how else would you or anyone know what else to ban or not ban?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
sorry I meant in modern history in total deaths and wounded, it is Oklahoma City, no gun used. That is the point I was making.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Eight of the 10 states with the highest homicide rates and eight of the 10 states with the lowest homicide rates all got “D” or “F” grades from the Brady Campaign analysis.
These States Have the Most Restrictive Gun Laws in America
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Colorado
4. District of Columbia
5. Maryland
6. Massachusetts
7. New Jersey
8. New York
states with the most lenient gun laws
8 Kentucky
7 Louisiana
6 Montana
5 North Dakota
4 Oklahoma
3 Arizona
2 Alaska
1 Utah
draw your own conclusions, I would also add Vermont has lax laws and "The gun ownership rate in Vermont is 28.8 percent." one of the lowest murder rates
New Hampshire didn't make the strictest list, in fact they have some fairly lax laws for concealed carry etc and yet look at their murder rate.
we COULD point out which states have had mass murders and which haven't but I don't think that's necessary :)
feel free to add to this if you like, i'll save it and repost it every time one of these threads starts up, saves a lot of typing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
blind socialist ideology
remember how they want to prevent the blacks from getting guns, they are just trying to expand it to all poor which blacks make up a big portion of. They won't give theirs up or their armed guards, security etc things the average person could never afford. The people in places like Chicago who kill each other are tolerated to a large degree because they tend to be poor and or black. It's the news worthy ones they want to stop. Keep it from the general public knowledge is the name of the game. if it was for highly publicized shootings there would be no talk of gun control, since that's the only times it's brought up.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Still talking about the large capacity magazine ban that was ruled unconstitutional. I'm not sure if you're talking about the same ban
no I actually mean bullets, the Democrats talked about banning bullets and joked that everyone could have whatever guns they wanted since they would be useless without bullets (paraphrasing)
The differences between it and what I advocate for do not justify a slippery slope scenario
obviously our opinions differ
The point you're missing the comparison to hand guns.
such as? that more people are killed by handguns? You are more likely to die in handgun murders? No idea what you are talking about.
The numbers you've chosen don't show it because you've cherry picked a subset of the data. You can make data say anything you please if you cherry pick it.
I used the biased and liberal mother jones report which I posted for you, the numbers are what they are, no cherry picking needed.
Which are all variables which are reflected in the number of injuries and deaths which are then averaged out.
Oh? not in the study you think is the best argument for your point.
" how many shots were taken, the length of time the shooter had"
the confinement of the people per yard or whatever measure you like, obviously a bunch of people trapped in a room or unable to exit an area due to everyone fleeing etc is a huge factor.
If recoil differs between guns, the effective firerate is different between guns.
ah ok, but what practical difference if any is made? in some of the cases where people are trapped in rooms or buildings how important is accuracy? And since you brought it up, how did rate of fire play a role in any of these murders?
Do you think if in Las Vegas he would have aimed rather than use a bump stock he would have killed more people? I do.
I mean, you could extend this right? There's little difference between 16" and 15". Then you could say there's little difference between 15" and 14" and so on.
yes, so where do you draw the line?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
sure, and the next worst? because some people will say yeah but they weren't citizens blah blah blah.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
ikr lol, then look at the interviews of how they readily accept voluntary separation by skin color, their own dorms, gyms etc. the generation of ignorance is what they should be labeled.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the comparison myth is just that, there's far too many variables to attempt to compare the U.S. with any other country, population and geographic size should make that obvious. Would you like to start a thread how those comparisons are accurate?
correlation does not imply causation
i dont know the number but for example there's a ten percent chance an assult rifle will be used to murder, but a five percent chance a handgun will.
WOW you certainly do not know, you appear woefully ignorant on the subject and unable to find out for yourself, that's pretty sad.
Created:
what is the worst mass murder in U.S. history? do you know? anybody? anyone? Beuler, beuler
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
-people like to say assault rifles are not that dangerous, because there are only a few hundred murders with them per year out of only around ten or so thousand of gun murders. the thing is though, the percent chance an assault rifle will be used to kill someone is significantly higher than the chance other guns will be used to kill someone.
check fbi stats, more people are killed by handguns you don't know wtf you are even talking about.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
tell me why people kill each other, commit mass murders including bombs, the one common factor regardless of the way,tool,reason or number of people killed is......the individual. If you could magically wave a wand and prevent all murders, guns would be a non factor. so this claim that guns are the problem just doesn't add up, plus the other reasons I stated. Perhaps there are more people who have no regard for the life of others in the U.S. than other countries, which would be a societal issue I guess. Perhaps other countries have better mental health, less bullying, fatherless and broken homes?
What drives someone to kill, just because they posses a gun? I don't think so. The U.S. has a lot more serial killers too which some of the worst didn't use guns
Why is the serial killer rate so "out of whack"?
you aren't more likely to be mugged in the usa
now that's an interesting statement, why do you think that is? and what are the stats of someone being mugged, complying with the robber and being killed anyway? of those killed after complying what was the method, did they know each other etc? hhmmm
how much are the murder rates affected if you take out the terrorist like the mass murder in California and Orlando, or illegal criminal aliens?
how does the homeless rate compare to other countries which are always tried to use a valid comparison, drug and gang numbers too.
anyway seems like plenty of things to consider than the overly simplistic guns are the problem.
--> @n8nrgmi
the point is, often you just exchange one set of problems for another, pick your poison, it was a response to your "safety vs freedom" question.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
comparisons of the U.S. with other countries, especially Australia is apples and bricks
it's an Island for starters, anyway far too many physical and cultural difference for any kind of serious comparison. Australia never had a gun crime issue either pre or post ban, they were never all that interested in killing each other for whatever reason.
I would also draw your attention to post #50 towards the bottom.
It’s very clear that the difference in the murder rates between those countries is a function of the availability of firearms, period.” "
It's very clear that we don't know if those murders wouldn't have happened anyway with a different tool, it is a function of a willingness to murder. Prove me wrong.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
good guess, but no not him, moving on
safety or freedom?
there are few places more safe than solitary confinement in prison, think I'd rather take my chances and enjoy freedom, how about you?
Palace servants and the like enjoy the protection of guards etc, yet they are/were slaves.
in the U.K. they maybe safer from gun crimes, maybe, however
On the rise: Statistics show an increase in knifepoint robberies, bicycle thefts and pickpocketing
The number of violent crimes and sex offences recorded by police in England and Wales has risen sharply over the past year, figures suggest.
back on topic, what study have you shown that guns are the problem exactly? as the number of guns in the U.S. goes up, crime goes down, seems rather conflicting doesn't it? Crimes have been going down for a while (there's always spikes in everything so lets not go there) though gun sales skyrocketed when the best gun salesman was in office for 8 years. How do you square those circles?
if guns were the problem as the op suggests then logically if you have more of them crime should also increase and yet....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is what I have said. He wouldn't have broken any islamic law so it is my guess they won't ask him to leave his position.
religion of peace and love obviously.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
here read these
can you guess which one is me?
blood-alcohol content of 0.23 percent, according to the prosecutor"s office, which is nearly three times the legal limit.
When an officer approached the car, Waldron pointed a gun at him, authorities said. The standoff that ensued ended when Waldron shot himself in the upper leg and slumped out of the car, officials said.
pleaded no contest to four charges: felony assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, DUI, reckless handling of a gun and brandishing a firearm.
On Monday, he was sentenced to a total of eight years, with all but six months and 20 days suspended
The active sentence reflects a mandatory minimum of six months on the assault charge and a mandatory 20 days on the DUI.
tell me again how more laws will help....I'm listening.
amazing what you can find these days, you need more? ok fine
Man Accused of Buying Guns Used in San Bernardino Shooting Pleads Not Guilty
Former Douglas County sheriff’s deputy headed to jail for buying felon boyfriend gun to protect his marijuana business
maximum of 25 years, still not sentenced yet afaik
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
show they youtube videos of people's first time at the range, there's one of grammas, might help.
Created: