This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.
OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it. This is a very confusing non-answer.

I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns. Dangit, I didn't say that. The stats are ugly. Gun violence within a subset of the black community is heinous. The situation has demonstrated volatility, and currently demonstrates volatility. You don't have the sensitivity or understanding to discuss it.

I don't know (or care much) if you are racist. I am just pointing out that you seem to bring racial tension to our forums. A lot.

What conclusion do you draw about your SNCC Rev. who openly discussed gunplay as a tactic, and was recalled? Why have you posted about that...twice?

Why have you quoted my honest (but very unflattering) NBIC numbers four times?

Tom, the singer Norma in the polka dot dress does Edda James beautifully. She's built pretty well, and learned real dancing elsewhere.

You are missing out down at the Friends of the NRA.

I think the violence (gun and otherwise) we see is a result of a history of discrimination. But you can't advance that thought for us?

I don't have an overall solution, but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start.
Your argument is far from brilliant. How about real estate licences, and stock brokerage licences? Are they not just as subject to racist decisions?
1. No, they are not. How about racist applications to dog licenses? If we cancel dog licenses, the discrimination factor will be zero.

2. Even if they were, there is no protected right to sell real estate or stocks, but we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.
OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it.

I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns.
This is a very confusing non-answer.

...

Dangit, I didn't say that. The stats are ugly. Gun violence within a subset of the black community is heinous. The situation has demonstrated volatility, and currently demonstrates volatility. You don't have the sensitivity or understanding to discuss it.
I think the explanation frequently offered by your elk, that gun ownership rates predict violence, is a very confusing non-answer in light of the much lower gun ownership rates and much higher violent crime rates among blacks. My conclusion from those stats you posted: gun ownership rates don't predict crime rates, nor even suicide rates.

You said that the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. The gun ownership rate clearly doesn't cause it. I figured the inherent volatility does since you haven't explained further. If that was wrong, please explain what you meant.

I guess your view is that government racial discrimination is not a big deal unless I can prove that the person discriminated against said so. I just don't accept that view. I think it's wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, including the person being discriminated against. But I guess you don't have the same sensitivity to government racism that I do and we can't discuss it.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.
OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it.

I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns.
This is a very confusing non-answer.

...

Dangit, I didn't say that. The stats are ugly. Gun violence within a subset of the black community is heinous. The situation has demonstrated volatility, and currently demonstrates volatility. You don't have the sensitivity or understanding to discuss it.
I think the explanation frequently offered by your elk, that gun ownership rates predict violence, is a very confusing non-answer in light of the much lower gun ownership rates and much higher violent crime rates among blacks. My conclusion from those stats you posted: gun ownership rates don't predict crime rates, nor even suicide rates.

You said that the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. The gun ownership rate clearly doesn't cause it. I figured the inherent volatility does since you haven't explained further. If that was wrong, please explain what you meant.

I guess your view is that government racial discrimination is not a big deal unless I can prove that the person discriminated against said so. I just don't accept that view. I think it's wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, including the person being discriminated against. But I guess you don't have the same sensitivity to government racism that I do and we can't discuss it.
Tom is oh-so sensitive to "government racism".

Bloomberg is a racist, unless he agrees with Tom and Tom's Bubba friends.

Jocal is a racist if he comments on angry white males (AWM's).

MLK is proof positive that "shall issue" will save the constitution, etc.

Some blacks are going all bloodbath with easy-to-obtain guns, which disproves the danger of guns across society.

Stupid stuff. The whole world is racist, unless Tom can apply his idiotic gun policies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
I think the explanation frequently offered by your elk, that gun ownership rates predict violence, is a very confusing non-answer in light of the much lower gun ownership rates and much higher violent crime rates among blacks. My conclusion from those stats you posted: gun ownership rates don't predict crime rates, nor even suicide rates.
That is convenient for you to deduce, no doubt, but not very scholarly.

You are cherry-picking one situation to avoid the conclusions of broad studies.

As Firearm Ownership Rises, Florida Gun Murders Increasinghttp://fcir.org/2013/04/21/as-firearm-ownership-rises-florida-gun-murders-increasing/

There’s no clear answer as to why gun murders have increased so dramatically. But one fact is hard to ignore: Floridians own more guns than they did a decade ago, when the gun murder rate was significantly lower.

Concealed carry permits and the state’s so-called “stand your ground” law also have emboldened more people to carry firearms, leading to more opportunities for gun murders.

(...) “With this law, it’s really not defending yourself anymore as much as it is exerting your power,” Phillips said. “A situation that used to be handled by reason is now handled by gunfire.”

(...) The presence of guns in a home during domestic violence increases the homicide chance for women by 500 percent, according to a 2003 study of domestic violence incidences in 11 cities.

Guns contribute to gun suicides, the experts say:

Twelve or more U.S. case control studieshttp://www.nci.nih.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=348989 have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/>

Access to guns increases risk of suicide, homicide

Of the 15 studies included in the meta-analysis, the only one that did not find a statistically meaningful increase in the odds of death associated with access to firearms was from New Zealand, where guns are much less available than they are in the United States. And even that study did find an increase, although not a statistically significant one.

(…)

When firearms were accessible, men were nearly four times more likely to commit suicide than when firearms were not accessible, while women were almost three times more likely to be victims of homicide.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-access-guns-suicide-homicide.html>

Source: American College of Physicians

All but 1 study (20) found significantly higher odds of suicide among participants who had firearm access than among those who did not, with ORs ranging from 1.38 to 10.38.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426#f2-6>
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
I guess your view translation: here comes a straw man is that government racial discrimination is not a big deal unless I can prove that the person discriminated against said so.

Pretty childish train of thought. Not really grown-up dialogue, Tom.

In fact, it's a dishonest, obtuse application of what I said.

I said that MLK's not geting a legal gun permit was no big deal. You accused me of racism based on that. I defined no big deal, twice, in the context of what MLK was, at his core (since MLK himself was not at all about guns, shall issue or SAF hubris). I asked you to document that it was a big deal to him, not to yourself. You can't document any big impact on MLK, I guess.

You are using MLK to give class to your serial race-baiting and dishonest propaganda. Good job.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
I think the explanation frequently offered by your elk, that gun ownership rates predict violence, is a very confusing non-answer in light of the much lower gun ownership rates and much higher violent crime rates among blacks. My conclusion from those stats you posted: gun ownership rates don't predict crime rates, nor even suicide rates.
That is convenient for you to deduce, no doubt, but not very scholarly.

You are cherry-picking one situation to avoid the conclusions of broad studies.

As Firearm Ownership Rises, Florida Gun Murders Increasinghttp://fcir.org/2013/04/21/as-firearm-ownership-rises-florida-gun-murders-increasing/

Guns are now the weapons of choice in 75 percent of all homicides in Florida. That’s up from 56 percent in 2000.

Guns contribute to gun suicides, the experts say:
I picked the above quote out of the article you linked because it looked suspect.

Sure enough, checking the actual source, one finds that guns have never been the weapons of choice in 75% of FL murders, at least not in the decades since such records have been kept.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/332e1b3d-2648-4b06-8be5-d322f340c95d/1971_fwd_murder_firearms.aspx

I think you need to go back to your own propagandist instead of borrowing random's. I know it's his because there can't be two of them stupid enough to look at a list of numbers and cherry-pick the second lowest one as a baseline for comparison. As we've discussed many times, the proper year to cherry pick is 1999.

If you want to talk about suicide rates, how about comparing the US rate to the rates in other developed countries? Not the gun suicide rate, the suicide rate. Your "experts" have only proven that an available tool will be used while one that is not available won't be, but that says nothing about preventing suicides through gun control.

 
G

Guest

Guest
The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.
I didn't say that the government would be needed, Rockdog. My family could take my rifle away.

My friends, or SE or Random or Sean or The Flash or Hard On or Gouv BL or Scot could take it away.

The SA Gun Club, not so much.

I think in Jocals nightmares he's being chased by a defective gun firing by itself and he's a varmint that can't get away.
That is some funny stuff, RD. Seriously.


If I didn't care about guns in the USA, we would never have met, boys.

Your problem is that Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun Guy and I DO care about them.

Yo, it doesn't have to go down like this.
Ummn....we never have met.

I'm sorry but your posts usually don't make sense to me. Your life also contradicts the things you post. Due to that I disregard all that you post.

I'd love to know the real reason you so much anti gun stuff on here. Facts show you are not anti gun. What are you hiding? You can tell us. We won't judge you.
Yes we will.....

 
G

Guest

Guest
The direction of gun culture concerns me. These gun things require responsibility, but little of that is being shown by the Modern NRA.

Pitching concepts of "tyranny fighting" as the main benefit of the second amendment in 2015 is not acceptable to me.

Rendering the ATF useless concerns me; not accepting gutted background checks concerns me.

Making county gun statutes impossible in 40 states concerns me.

Ignoring the "well regulated militia" wordage of the second amendment is of great concern to me, especially if using manufactured, non peer-reviewed historical scholarship.

In short, moderate gunowners could find a path out of 85% of these numbers. They could play a role in defining, identifying, and enforcing high-risk-based gun situations. They could discredit the gun-extremists for what they are.

The gun culture itself to positively define and enforce what is un-cool. They could go with special licensing for AW's to limit their access to the unvetted masses.

Basics like background checks could be considered as a compromise to registration.

Moderates might distance themselves from insurrectionist rhetoric.

The present direction of the gun mentality is foolish, IMO, and has tones of lowbrow law-breaking (as opposed to true civil disobedience).

The gun culture has indicators that it needs strong opposition.

Rockdog, Anarchy, around here, is the act of pointing things like that out, as clearly as possible, while using broad sources.
I don't have the patience to address all of your silliness..... but to take a couple of egregious bits:

Ummm - you continually write as if there are no background checks. Hate to break it to you, but there are Federally mandated BGCs in all 50 states.

Both the "well regulated" bit and the "fighting tyranny" bit are well described by the founders as to what they meant. Are you really suggesting the Federalist Papers are not peer reviewed enough for you? Sorry, I will take their word over any BS scholar you want to throw out there.

And finally, I hate to keep bursting your bubble - but the fact that it is 2015 is totally irrelevant to what the 2A means. Fighting tyranny is just as if not more relevant now as then. The fact that we are not currently using it to fight an internal tyrannical gov't, fortunately, has no bearing as to whether it might be needed in the future. The constitution and the processes to change it exists specifically so that the whims of the current generation cannot easily override the principles they laid down. I realize explaining this to you, joe,, is like talking to a rock. But it is what it is. The constitution was specifically designed to protect the country against people EXACTLY like you! Get this through your thick fucking skull..... the 2A is not about hunting or sports or collecting or whatever. It is about protection from a tyrannical gov't either internally or externally as well as personal defense, Nothing else. Everything else is gravy.

The oath tells the story..... "against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic".

 
G

Guest

Guest
Texting drivers on the other hand.....
Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
The direction of gun culture concerns me. These gun things require responsibility, but little of that is being shown by the Modern NRA.

Pitching concepts of "tyranny fighting" as the main benefit of the second amendment in 2015 is not acceptable to me.

Rendering the ATF useless concerns me; not accepting gutted background checks concerns me.

Making county gun statutes impossible in 40 states concerns me.

Ignoring the "well regulated militia" wordage of the second amendment is of great concern to me, especially if using manufactured, non peer-reviewed historical scholarship.

In short, moderate gunowners could find a path out of 85% of these numbers. They could play a role in defining, identifying, and enforcing high-risk-based gun situations. They could discredit the gun-extremists for what they are.

The gun culture itself to positively define and enforce what is un-cool. They could go with special licensing for AW's to limit their access to the unvetted masses.

Basics like background checks could be considered as a compromise to registration.

Moderates might distance themselves from insurrectionist rhetoric.

The present direction of the gun mentality is foolish, IMO, and has tones of lowbrow law-breaking (as opposed to true civil disobedience).

The gun culture has indicators that it needs strong opposition.

Rockdog, Anarchy, around here, is the act of pointing things like that out, as clearly as possible, while using broad sources.
I don't have the patience to address all of your silliness..... but to take a couple of egregious bits:

Ummm - you continually write as if there are no background checks. Hate to break it to you, but there are Federally mandated BGCs in all 50 states.

Bad start, bro. This is a very dishonest statement, since private sales (40% of the market) are excluded from federal law.

Both the "well regulated" bit and the "fighting tyranny" bit are well described by the founders as to what they meant. Produce your quotes. The only quotes I've seen were taken way out of context. Are you really suggesting translation: here comes a straw man the Federalist Papers are not peer reviewed enough for you? Sorry, I will take their word over any BS scholar you want to throw out there.

And finally, I hate to keep bursting your bubble - but the fact that it is 2015 is totally irrelevant to what the 2A means. Fighting tyranny is just as if not more relevant now as then. The fact that we are not currently using it to fight an internal tyrannical gov't, fortunately, has no bearing as to whether it might be needed in the future. The constitution and the processes to change it exists specifically so that the whims of the current generation cannot easily override the principles they laid down. I realize explaining this to you, joe,, is like talking to a rock. But it is what it is. The constitution was specifically designed to protect the country against people EXACTLY like you! Get this through your thick fucking skull..... the 2A is not about hunting or sports or collecting or whatever. It is about protection from a tyrannical gov't either internally or externally as well as personal defense, Nothing else. Everything else is gravy.

The oath tells the story..... "against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic".
As presented, all this Founding Father intellectual arrogance may not be what one thinks.

Dana Loesch's New Gun Book Botches Quotes From The Founding Fathershttp://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/22/dana-loeschs-new-gun-book-botches-quotes-from-t/201264Conservative commentator Dana Loesch's new book Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America includes spurious quotes from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers, despite the fact that it purports to teach readers about "the history of the Second Amendment."

Loesch, who hosts a radio show on The Blaze, is currently on a media tour promoting her book and has made appearances on Fox News programs The Kelly File, Fox & Friends, Hannity and America's Newsroom.

She joins other conservative authors, including Emily Miller and Glenn Beck, in advancing a pro-gun agenda, in part by citing thediscredited "more guns, less crime" research of economist John Lott.

In her book, Loesch also attempts to demonstrate that the Founding Father's view of the Second Amendment matches her own, but in doing so she misquotes, and often takes out of context, the Founder's true words.

In a section titled, "In Their Own Words," Loesch writes, "Just to make sure everyone reading this book is well armed -- pun intended -- with the facts about the Founders and their intentions, the Buckeye Firearms Association compiled a list of quotes attributed to various Founders that demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt what our Constitution's drafters intended when they drafted and approved the Second Amendment."

Loesch added, "Do the new-century equivalent of sticking them onto your fridge: Post them to Facebook or Twitter."

However, many of the quotes listed are not accurate.

GEORGE WASHINGTON

Loesch:

"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

Actual Quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

The version appearing in Loesch's book crops language from Washington's quote that made it clear he was talking about the creation of a national defense strategy. According to the full text of Washington's first State of the Union address, he was discussing what it meant to "be prepared for war" and "[t]he proper establishment of the troops."

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Loesch:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (quoting eighteenth-century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

Loesch presents this quote as if Jefferson were quoting Beccaria approvingly, but that is not necessarily the case. Monticello, Jefferson's estate which is currently maintained by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., lists the quote as "spurious" when attributed to Jefferson.

Jefferson copied the Beccaria quote in Italian into his legal commonplace book, a "journal or notebook in which a student, reader, or writer compiles quotations, poems, letters, and information, along with the compiler's notes and reactions." Jefferson notated the copied passage with the words, "False idee di utilità," which is a summation of the idea contained in the quotation and is not evidence of what "our Constitution's drafters intended when they drafted and approved the Second Amendment."

JAMES MADISON

Loesch:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." -- James Madison

Actual Quote (Emphasis Added To Highlight Deleted Portions):

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

In this quote, Loesch presented a mangled summation of The Federalist Papers #46 that distorts Madison's meaning. Loesch's version omits parts of Madison's commentary because those sentences make it clear he was talking about state militias being a check on government tyranny, not privately held arms.

PATRICK HENRY

Loesch:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." --Patrick Henry

Actual Quote (Emphasis Added To Highlight Deleted Portions):

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed.But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.

Henry was actually talking about ensuring that members of the militia were adequately armed, not the general public. According to historian and Patrick Henry scholar Henry Mayer, "[W]ielding the scholar's power of the ellipse several partisans of gun ownership have edited Henry's remarks about how best to regulate the militia into an inflammatory half-truth 'The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun.' The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry's image."

Furthermore, the Henry quotation uses ellipses to join together two ideas that Henry expressed days apart. Henry spoke about guarding "the public liberty" on June 5, 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. His comments about arms, which appear distorted in Loesch's book,occurred on June 14 at the same convention.

THOMAS PAINE

Loesch:

"Arms... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived the use of them." --Thomas Paine

Actual Quote (Emphasis Added To Highlight Deleted Portions):

"... arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them ..."

The quote cited by Loesch is taken from "Thoughts on Defensive War," which was published in Pennsylvania Magazine in the early months of the Revolutionary War in 1775. It was "probably" written by Paine.

As the essay's title suggests, it is about armed conflict between nations and how a religious Quaker should respond to British aggression, not private ownership of firearms. Where Loesch's book uses brackets to say Paine wrote about "the law-abiding," Paine actually wrote, "one half the world," an allusion to his argument that nations that failed to possess arms would be overrun by those who did.

Pasted from <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/22/dana-loeschs-new-gun-book-botches-quotes-from-t/201264>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mike in Seattle

Super Anarchist
4,334
600
Latte land
:( , looks like we need yet another perspective re-set here,,

The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.
:) Paging jocal to the Background Check thread,,

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Texting drivers on the other hand.....
Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.
Really? See my signature line.

 

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
Two weeks ago a guy working in same building I do suddenly stopped showing up. Heard yesterday he hung himself.

So last two suicides around here in the past year were by hanging. This deadly rope shit has gotta stop. It is killing more and more people...but they were white so no one cares.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
R Booze said:
Two weeks ago a guy working in same building I do suddenly stopped showing up. Heard yesterday he hung himself.

So last two suicides around here in the past year were by hanging. This deadly rope shit has gotta stop. It is killing more and more people...but they were white so no one cares.

I think the cordage manufacturers and dealers should be held liable for these violent rope self-murders, don't you?....
And waiting periods for anything stronger than cotton string.

 

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
Anyone can buy the stuff. No age limit. No background checks. No waiting period. Some of it is made of STEEL! That shit is the worst - way scarier than the normal stuff.

Fucking immature sailors buy all this shit up and don't care how deadly it is to the common man. Fuck the sailors. They should just find a new hobby.

What do people need rope for these days anyway- no one uses clothes lines anymore.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Texting drivers on the other hand.....
Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.
Really? See my signature line.
I have them hidden for everyone. You can thank Woody for that..... Answer the fooken question,

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Texting drivers on the other hand.....
Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.
Really? See my signature line.
I have them hidden for everyone. You can thank Woody for that..... Answer the fooken question,
No thanks. Your question is too childish to bother with.

 

Latest posts




Top