- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
By the size of her dick.
Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿
- Thread starter Randall Fragg
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
Depends on if there's some bones left from the fire. Funnily enough, you can identify dead bodies' ethnicity by their bones and can confirm a person by their dental records if you have them.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
There's a lot of large animals that move enough to disprove that theory...
That's sadly not a joke.
I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, "Die, you bitch!"
"I can look after myself," said my 17-year-old.
"But men are stronger than women," I said. "When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage."
"That's a sexist thing to say," she replied.
A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.
"But it's a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact," I said.
"It's sexist," she reiterated firmly.
"I can look after myself," said my 17-year-old.
"But men are stronger than women," I said. "When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage."
"That's a sexist thing to say," she replied.
A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.
"But it's a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact," I said.
"It's sexist," she reiterated firmly.
Source: https://www.city-journal.org/html/tough-love-11787.html
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Yes, that's called hip-fire. Of course you shouldn't hold a hand gun with one hand to ensure maximum accuracy and usage.
Fair enough. Riddle me this then: vaping, video games, Planned Parenthood (abortion), immigration, student loans. A few things that the government wants to try to regulate and control, but when it comes to guns: there's a hissy fit of why they should be maintained and regulated.
Are gun drills during a school year supposed to be normal? Or having bulletproof backpacks? Considering it mainly happens in suburbia, it has people up in arms about safety but when it comes to "urban" areas, they just let it go and declare it "gang shootings", despite that you could argue that they would classify as mass shootings given their frequency and lack of control.
The NRA uses this as a perfect opportunity for funding and get people in hysteria so they could inflate their influence.
If banning or discussing guns won't work, what would be a solution to the mass shooting epidemic in America? I'm asking gun owners.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
In the 1960s and 70s, kids would actually bring their own guns to school because they were either participating in the school's shooting club, or it was the first day of hunting season. You could actually order a gun from the back of comic books - no background check needed.
So I'll answer your question once you answer mine - if the availability of guns has actually decreased in the decades since and yet school shootings have not (if anything, they have increased), what leads you to believe that further reduction of guns would this reduce shootings this time?
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Define availability. This may sound like backtracking, but to answer the bolded question: where and how are people able to obtain guns like Tec-9s, 9mms, Uzi with the black market? I know gun shops exists, but only in the outskirts of town.
Guns in the 60s and 70s likely accounted to rifles, handguns, and shotguns. The semi-automatics were reserved for military or police. It sounds like with the 60s and 70s, schoolchildren owning guns was a common thing, but after segregation ended, there has been a sudden influx of urban gun violence with those aforementioned guns coming out of nowhere.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
The media stopping sensationalizing them would be a good start. Every time it happens they show graphic pictures of the carnage, crowds of weeping people and every publication runs story after story on the shooter.
The media has standards for reporting on suicide (which they don't always follow as well), but none at all for mass shootings. The copycat effect is real, and not just with suicide. I'll give you two examples from sports/crime.
On Sunday of Week 14 of the 2001 NFL Season occurred the infamous event now know as Bottlegate, when Cleveland fans threw bottles at the Jacksonville players and referees. What do you think happened the very next day at the Superdome during the Monday night game between New Orleans and St. Louis? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.
Also, when was the last time you watched a televised sporting event and they actually showed a fan or streaker running onto the field or even mentioned it on the broadcast? They don't anymore. And that's to disincentivize it. So if you're not gonna get attention and you're not gonna get on television, you might as well not even try.
If the media would take that approach and not give them the notoriety they're looking for I'm sure it would go a long way to reducing mass shootings. Note that rise of mass shootings are not correlated with rates of gun ownership, but do with the emergence of the 24/7 news environment and social media.
Just Some Other Guy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2018
Probably has something to do with a mix of deteriorating quality of mental health care and a growing apathy in the agencies responsible for monitoring this stuff. Wasn't it the Sandy Hook kid that brought a knife to school and they did nothing about it because it'd make them look bad?
I don't care if it's 100 dead kids or 1. I don't care if it's a gun, knife, or a bomb. I only care about why does a kid feel the need to go and kill other kids at school?
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
LOL nigga plenty of people besides cops had semi-autos in the 60-70's. Do you even understand what a fuckin' semi-auto is?
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
You're not going to like my answer.
"Mass shooting" is a term that is defined so imprecisely, you can get a result of anything from "one every 60 days", to a gang war drive-by, to a guy who snaps and murder-suicides his wife and her two boyfriends. But let's say you're thinking of things like the shootings that actually get media attention, the flashy splashy ones that they use for political fuel for their agenda.
Now that you've defined it, you're still far from a solution. You need to sort out the root cause of the incidents you're trying to avoid. If you want to see if a gun ban or other general restriction is going to be effective, you need to determine if access to guns is a cause.
For that, establish how frequent mass shooters are among the general gun-accessing population are. (See, that's why you need to define it carefully; otherwise, you're gonna screw the pooch right here.) Considering the sheer millions of people in the United States who have access to guns, much less own them directly, versus the number of mass shooters in the United States (even the most generous definition puts it at only about 2500 at the very most), you have what amounts to a statistically insignificant (frequency < 0.05%) number.
The extreme, extreme majority of gun-accessers simply do not commit the crime you are trying to avert. Therefore, any "solution" directed at the general population is going to be not merely ineffective, but inefficient, unjust, and potentially exacerbate the problem due to an inability to self-defend or deter.
Mass shooters are an aberration, and an extremely rare one when you look at the big picture. Gun-accessers are not ticking time-bombs. Mass shooters are also so diverse in their conditions and causation, that we need to look at them as individual cases rather than an "epidemic". Generalized solutions will not work.
Do I know what should work to prevent the next one? No, because I don't know the next one. And maybe that's the actual problem, that we don't know each other well enough to identify who might be the next one. Isolation, avoidance, a refusal of personal responsibility--these are the hallmarks of our modern era. And the crimes become more inhuman, because we're no longer human to one another.
Or maybe there is no solution. Maybe some people are just so morally bankrupt or broken that it can't be prevented every time. Just because something scary happens, it doesn't mean we must act.
Now that you've defined it, you're still far from a solution. You need to sort out the root cause of the incidents you're trying to avoid. If you want to see if a gun ban or other general restriction is going to be effective, you need to determine if access to guns is a cause.
For that, establish how frequent mass shooters are among the general gun-accessing population are. (See, that's why you need to define it carefully; otherwise, you're gonna screw the pooch right here.) Considering the sheer millions of people in the United States who have access to guns, much less own them directly, versus the number of mass shooters in the United States (even the most generous definition puts it at only about 2500 at the very most), you have what amounts to a statistically insignificant (frequency < 0.05%) number.
The extreme, extreme majority of gun-accessers simply do not commit the crime you are trying to avert. Therefore, any "solution" directed at the general population is going to be not merely ineffective, but inefficient, unjust, and potentially exacerbate the problem due to an inability to self-defend or deter.
Mass shooters are an aberration, and an extremely rare one when you look at the big picture. Gun-accessers are not ticking time-bombs. Mass shooters are also so diverse in their conditions and causation, that we need to look at them as individual cases rather than an "epidemic". Generalized solutions will not work.
Do I know what should work to prevent the next one? No, because I don't know the next one. And maybe that's the actual problem, that we don't know each other well enough to identify who might be the next one. Isolation, avoidance, a refusal of personal responsibility--these are the hallmarks of our modern era. And the crimes become more inhuman, because we're no longer human to one another.
Or maybe there is no solution. Maybe some people are just so morally bankrupt or broken that it can't be prevented every time. Just because something scary happens, it doesn't mean we must act.
TL;DR version: There's no simple answer, because even normal people are complicated and mass shooters are not normal people. Stop getting stampeded into giving up your rights just because you're scared.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2018
Not... really. There wasn't the surge of AR-15s or anything that we have now, but the Winchester 100, for example? Box magazine fed .308 semi-auto rifle, dates back to '61, and it's a hugely popular hunting rifle. Several other popular semi-auto rifles came out in the same general time period - the Browning BAR, the Springfield Armory M1A, etc. Plus, remember, post WW2 in particular saw a huge flood of milsurp rifles like the M1 Garand (clip-fed 30-06 semi-auto).
The thing, all of these had wood furniture and no pistol grip. That is 99.975% of what people complain about with the AR-15, whether they know it or not. And most don't.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
From the sounds of it, guns aren't the problem per se. Merely tools used by psychopaths to carry out their rages against the rest of society.
The real issue is people seeing the signs and doing nothing to stop them before they actually carry out their deeds. People are unpredictable, you're right. That's the scary part. If not guns, they'll just resort to something else. But given America's stance on bearing arms, guns are the easiest access to obtain.
Mental health is the buzzword I'm hearing about mass shooters. While that's a more tangible correlation than video games, there are many people with mental health issues that stem from sheltering, abuse, brain defects, conditioning, et al. Damn near a majority of them wouldn't think to carry out killing people. America's stance on mental health is practically non-existent.
Regulation shouldn't have to be much of an issue, but if nothing gets done, then we've reached an impasse of the problem taking shape and being unmanageable.
Y
YW 525
Guest
kiwifarms.net
I'll try to give a somewhat equitable answer to this because I think it is important for us to make the attempt. Just don't kill me if I don't get it perfect.
I've heard a spin on this issue from several commentators and I have also arrived at a similar conclusion dependently. I'm sure some of you have as well.
This doesn't seem like a "mass shooting" problem to me. It seems like a lot of these people are committing suicide. And if they're going to go out, they might as well finally be known for something. And the news media are quite happy to eat it up and share it around in the worst kinds of ways.
Now with that said, I've always had a problem with being able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a rifle assuming I have the money to pay for it then and there. It's definitely neat and works in my favor as a person that wants a gun, but I wouldn't have a problem with slowing that process down with waiting periods and background checks. That's perfectly reasonable to me. Though I highly doubt that will solve mass shooting suicides because a lot of these people already had the guns to begin with. The thing that changed was that at some point after they purchased the gun, they lost all hope and became despondent. And in that state you become susceptible to all kinds of bad forms of suggestion and you generally make very poor, self-destructive decisions.
We need to fix the people, not the law. I don't know how to do that and could only make guesses about how it relates to socioeconomic conditions on the ground. But I do know that therapy is way too fucking expensive and it's criminal how insurance treats payments for mental health issues.
*missed a letter
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2018
Yeah, but that ties into what we mockingly call the 'scary black rifle' effect. A pistol grip gives a slight improvement in ergonomics, but it no more turns a rifle into a 'murder machine' than tying a white cloth band around your head makes you Ryu from Street Fighter.
And this has been a problem for a while. Before the stupid fuck had the good grace to die, Ted Kennedy once opined, on the Senate floor, that:
Well no shit, because most LEO vests are rated for pistol rounds, not rifle rounds. Not content with showing how exceptional he was, the drunk went on to talk about:Drunk Faggot said:
Drunk Faggot said:
For those of you unfamiliar with rifle calibers, the .30-30 caliber debuted in 1895. It was primarily used in the 1894 Winchester lever-action rifle.
When a leftist says anything about guns, double check, because chances are good he's talking out of his ass.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
What you would have to do to "fix" people is to take away their ability to choose to do evil, because even when we know better, we still do evil shit.
Like, for instance, we can continue to realize that any given person--man, woman, or child--is much, much more at risk of being raped or killed in a home invasion than killed in a "mass shooting", and yet we will try to solve the bigger, flashier, more hyped problem by taking away that person's ready access to a means to defend self and family. More people harmed, because we need to feel good.
You don't get more evil than throwing helpless people to the wolves so you can feel good for a moment.
Just, y'know, as an example.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
Trannies are disproportionally represented in prostitution, prostitution is one of the most dangerous occupations: I believe north pacific fishing/crabbing is more dangerous by percentage, but the type of hooking you do on the street has the larger over-all body count. And only 19.
What is an "epidemic"?
Let me put this another way:
Do you know how many people die from AIDS vs. these "mass shootings"?
AIDS is not airborne, waterborne, or even skin-to-skin transmitted. To cure AIDS forever, you simply need people with AIDS to stop fucking & swapping blood with non-infected people. Period. If you actually care about saving lives at the cost of violating constitutional rights, you should be supporting putting AIDS carriers into isolated colonies so that in 20-30 years, the disease is cured as they die off naturally. You will save more lives, and only violate the constitutional rights of a smaller number of people, that way.
Most of these mass shootings, and 100% of school shootings, are in places where guns are already illegal.
Guns are already banned at schools. Its illegal to have them there. There is ALREADY A BAN. The Ban hasn't fixed anything, its only created a zone of vulnerable, unarmed targets these microdicked crazies can go to experience their power fantasy. Banning law-abiding people from owning guns will only expand that zone of unarmed victims.
Not an NSA Plant 69
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2019
You hit the nail on the head. The big part of the problem is ignorance, many of those whom support banning assault weapon do not understand or know anything about firearms. They see a rifle patterned military firearm and assume it is a military firearm not a civilian version, it would be like seeing an H2 Hummer on the street and calling it a military vehicle. The other thing that they don't understand is the reason that so many people purchase AR-15 pattern rifles is due to wide availability and lower price point, not a desire to get performance unavailable in other formats.
Two new rifles (one AR-15 and one non-AR-15) with the same performance and features cost vastly different amounts. One based on the AR-15 design generally costs between 25% to 30% the price of a comparable rifle which is based on another design, even if the other design uses synthetics (cheaper to make since they are molded and require little finishing) instead of wood (which are turned and routed, before being sanded and finished during production). The pricing for liquidated military weapons like the M-1 or M-14 which require no special licensing or stamps due to being semi-automatics, are just as high or even higher than a new rifle that isn't based on the AR-15.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2016
An AR-15 is black and scary and no different, save it's action, then a Mini-14.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
Yeah, I'm just gonna glaze over the /k/ sperging and deep thoughts toilet posting on mass shootings and just wait for more stupid shit to be spewed by people who have been angry for over three years.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018