Mass Shooting in El Paso, Texas

8/4/2019 2:19pm
-MAVERICK- wrote:
1- I didn't start anything political. 2- I never said shooting people was a sport. Just said why I think the news always refers to them...
1- I didn't start anything political.
2- I never said shooting people was a sport. Just said why I think the news always refers to them types of weapons as assault rifles.
3- I didn't see all the posts.
4- Warning. Fine, I guess.
GuyB wrote:
Relax. My reply about the political part wasn’t directed at you.
I'm pretty sure it was my post, which is fine. It's better it was deleted since it would have probably ended up in a debate about politics. My intentions were not to bring politics into the discussion, but to point out where the media was going to go with these types of stories.
GD2
Posts
16116
Joined
5/10/2014
Location
Plano, TX, USA
Fantasy
8/4/2019 2:21pm
My roommate has family in El Paso and they regularly shop at that Walmart. In fact he just visited them last week. Scary stuff.
8/4/2019 2:55pm
LoudLove wrote:
Can a person be both Pro-2nd Amendment AND Pro-gun control? Or is that like being a "little bit pregnant"? Legal, responsible gun owners should not be...
Can a person be both Pro-2nd Amendment AND Pro-gun control? Or is that like being a "little bit pregnant"?

Legal, responsible gun owners should not be penalized for the actions of a very small minority. That's akin to suspending everyone's driving privileges due to drunk drivers. However, as a gun owner, I would welcome a licensing system where sales of weapons like AR-15's required predefined coursework. In another driving analogy, we require drivers to pass a rigorous series of exams prior to obtaining a license. And, yes, guns will be in the hands of people without licenses, just like there are unlicensed drivers today. But that doesn't mean steps should not be taken to at least reverse current trends.
this would be sensible, a gun owner licence system is what most of the world operates under,

and the argument that it wont stop everything, is like saying all drugs should be legal because people take them anyway,
borg
Posts
7030
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
8/4/2019 3:16pm
LoudLove wrote:
Can a person be both Pro-2nd Amendment AND Pro-gun control? Or is that like being a "little bit pregnant"? Legal, responsible gun owners should not be...
Can a person be both Pro-2nd Amendment AND Pro-gun control? Or is that like being a "little bit pregnant"?

Legal, responsible gun owners should not be penalized for the actions of a very small minority. That's akin to suspending everyone's driving privileges due to drunk drivers. However, as a gun owner, I would welcome a licensing system where sales of weapons like AR-15's required predefined coursework. In another driving analogy, we require drivers to pass a rigorous series of exams prior to obtaining a license. And, yes, guns will be in the hands of people without licenses, just like there are unlicensed drivers today. But that doesn't mean steps should not be taken to at least reverse current trends.
I think you can be both. I certainly am. I also think firearms training would definitely cut down on accidental gun death but because it's a 2nd amendment right, I'm not sure you could require training. Driving is not a right and even with the required training there are about 35,000 traffic deaths a year. The real task is to devise something that will help slow down the rise in these mass shootings. Something that does not unduly infringe on legal ownership but can alert local police like a lowjack device on certain weapons that would send out a signal when it's being transported. I know they have them now but maybe some kind of system that's a little more sophisticated that would signal if the gun was near a school or other populated place. Just thinking out loud.

1

The Shop

colintrax
Posts
4695
Joined
8/25/2015
Location
Taylorsville, GA, USA
8/4/2019 3:50pm
.kyle wrote:
But if guns were banned you wouldn't need to shoot back. I understand the idea of arming people to take out a nutter who is shooting...
But if guns were banned you wouldn't need to shoot back.

I understand the idea of arming people to take out a nutter who is shooting, but it relies on people having the skill and guts to do so. So surely to remove the gun in the first place is the most sensible option as it would mean the nutter wouldn't be shooting to begin with.

Pikes Peak can ban bikes from racing in 2020 because Carlin Dunne unfortunately died. Cigarettes are targeted for cancer deaths, yet hundreds of people die from guns and it's okay to carry on easily selling them (not in all states from my limited understanding).
I hate to break this to you, but guns are very easy to manufacture. In fact some organized crime groups are making their own guns.
Aside from that, nobody needs a gun to kill you. Or a bunch of people. Bombs are easy to make. Fires are easy to start. Cars are easy to drive right over people. It dont take much to kill us Sad
4
APLMAN99
Posts
12826
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
8/4/2019 4:41pm
LoudLove wrote:
Can a person be both Pro-2nd Amendment AND Pro-gun control? Or is that like being a "little bit pregnant"? Legal, responsible gun owners should not be...
Can a person be both Pro-2nd Amendment AND Pro-gun control? Or is that like being a "little bit pregnant"?

Legal, responsible gun owners should not be penalized for the actions of a very small minority. That's akin to suspending everyone's driving privileges due to drunk drivers. However, as a gun owner, I would welcome a licensing system where sales of weapons like AR-15's required predefined coursework. In another driving analogy, we require drivers to pass a rigorous series of exams prior to obtaining a license. And, yes, guns will be in the hands of people without licenses, just like there are unlicensed drivers today. But that doesn't mean steps should not be taken to at least reverse current trends.
You really can't be both, though a good number of us (myself included) try to fool ourselves into believing that we can be. It's a right that "shall not be infringed", and any sort of control is by definition an infringement.

It pains me to reach the point I have where I now question the sanity of the Second Amendment. I've grown up shooting a gun out ththe backyard before the age of 10, always respected the dangers of weapons, and feel that I have always acted responsibly with them. I no longer keep guns in the house because our youngest child is somewhat special needs and didn't always understand consequences of his Impulsiveness. But it wasn't because of any morality play on guns themselves.

Now I'm realizing that I may be suffering from cognitive dissonance when it comes to guns. I understand the Constitutional issues involved and don't believe that we should be passing laws that violate the Constitution so maybe it's time to explore whether it'd be good to amend a portion of it. We've had to do it to correct the notion that slaves were not only allowed, but were the equivalent of 5/9ths of a person. The Constitution isn't a sacred text, it's just how our population chooses to determine how we interact and govern. That should always be open to debate about change and those changes should have a very high bar to clear in order to be adopted, but it just may be time to think about it.

The whole issue is confusing as hell and it absolutely hurts my soul to think I may have been fooling myself for decades about this.....
2
4
BMSOBx2
Posts
2087
Joined
2/18/2017
Location
Antioch, CA, USA
8/4/2019 4:51pm Edited Date/Time 8/4/2019 4:53pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
You really can't be both, though a good number of us (myself included) try to fool ourselves into believing that we can be. It's a right...
You really can't be both, though a good number of us (myself included) try to fool ourselves into believing that we can be. It's a right that "shall not be infringed", and any sort of control is by definition an infringement.

It pains me to reach the point I have where I now question the sanity of the Second Amendment. I've grown up shooting a gun out ththe backyard before the age of 10, always respected the dangers of weapons, and feel that I have always acted responsibly with them. I no longer keep guns in the house because our youngest child is somewhat special needs and didn't always understand consequences of his Impulsiveness. But it wasn't because of any morality play on guns themselves.

Now I'm realizing that I may be suffering from cognitive dissonance when it comes to guns. I understand the Constitutional issues involved and don't believe that we should be passing laws that violate the Constitution so maybe it's time to explore whether it'd be good to amend a portion of it. We've had to do it to correct the notion that slaves were not only allowed, but were the equivalent of 5/9ths of a person. The Constitution isn't a sacred text, it's just how our population chooses to determine how we interact and govern. That should always be open to debate about change and those changes should have a very high bar to clear in order to be adopted, but it just may be time to think about it.

The whole issue is confusing as hell and it absolutely hurts my soul to think I may have been fooling myself for decades about this.....
They ratified the 18th Amendment and then repealed it because it was a bad choice. Sometimes people, even the founding fathers make mistakes.
1
3
Falcon
Posts
12575
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA, USA
8/4/2019 4:57pm
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
Vein, vane, vain?

Hey FALCON!!!
Vein: a structure through which blood flows. Also describes the way certain ores lie in the ground. (A "vein" of silver winds through the rock.)
Vain: pertaining to vanity or self-interest. A vain person does things for no other reason than to glorify himself. When we say "in vain" it means essentially that there was no impact to the outside world: only to those involved.
Vane: a flat surface designed to direct or be directed by the flow of a fluid. A weathervane is a good example, or those inserts we sometimes put in our intakes.
Falcon
Posts
12575
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA, USA
8/4/2019 5:02pm
I do not own any guns. Never have and probably won't. However, I think it is vitally important that the populace be allowed to keep and bear arms; it is truly the only protection we have from a corrupt government.
Alter the Constitution with a 2/3rds vote if you must, but it would be a massive mistake to create a scenario wherein only the law-abiding citizens had to relinquish gun ownership.
6
borg
Posts
7030
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
8/4/2019 5:16pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
You really can't be both, though a good number of us (myself included) try to fool ourselves into believing that we can be. It's a right...
You really can't be both, though a good number of us (myself included) try to fool ourselves into believing that we can be. It's a right that "shall not be infringed", and any sort of control is by definition an infringement.

It pains me to reach the point I have where I now question the sanity of the Second Amendment. I've grown up shooting a gun out ththe backyard before the age of 10, always respected the dangers of weapons, and feel that I have always acted responsibly with them. I no longer keep guns in the house because our youngest child is somewhat special needs and didn't always understand consequences of his Impulsiveness. But it wasn't because of any morality play on guns themselves.

Now I'm realizing that I may be suffering from cognitive dissonance when it comes to guns. I understand the Constitutional issues involved and don't believe that we should be passing laws that violate the Constitution so maybe it's time to explore whether it'd be good to amend a portion of it. We've had to do it to correct the notion that slaves were not only allowed, but were the equivalent of 5/9ths of a person. The Constitution isn't a sacred text, it's just how our population chooses to determine how we interact and govern. That should always be open to debate about change and those changes should have a very high bar to clear in order to be adopted, but it just may be time to think about it.

The whole issue is confusing as hell and it absolutely hurts my soul to think I may have been fooling myself for decades about this.....
BMSOBx2 wrote:
They ratified the 18th Amendment and then repealed it because it was a bad choice. Sometimes people, even the founding fathers make mistakes.
There happens to lots of gun control laws all over the country that do not violate the Constitution. You both should check into it before you decide that you cant be pro 2nd and pro gun control.

I'll help you: Gun control laws

2
1
8/4/2019 5:43pm
LoudLove wrote:
Can a person be both Pro-2nd Amendment AND Pro-gun control? Or is that like being a "little bit pregnant"? Legal, responsible gun owners should not be...
Can a person be both Pro-2nd Amendment AND Pro-gun control? Or is that like being a "little bit pregnant"?

Legal, responsible gun owners should not be penalized for the actions of a very small minority. That's akin to suspending everyone's driving privileges due to drunk drivers. However, as a gun owner, I would welcome a licensing system where sales of weapons like AR-15's required predefined coursework. In another driving analogy, we require drivers to pass a rigorous series of exams prior to obtaining a license. And, yes, guns will be in the hands of people without licenses, just like there are unlicensed drivers today. But that doesn't mean steps should not be taken to at least reverse current trends.
"sales of weapons like AR-15's"

I don't disagree with your point on vetting however what specifically is it about the AR 15 that requires extra checks and what other firearms also qualify as being like it?

There's a temptation to dismiss this as pure semantics but the vagueness surrounding the exact specifics has, imo, only poisoned the well and hindered one side from engaging in serious debate with the other. The pro gun side is broadly deeply suspicious (rightly or wrongly) of those on the opposite end of the argument, believing them to be on an ideological crusade to ultimately ban all firearms.

I'm not directing this at you but meaningless statements such as "military style", "assault rifle", "military grade", "automatic" "black rifles" etc don't help in this perception. I think we all know what these things mean to many people in an aesthetic sense, ideologically at least, but not what they could actually come to mean practically in a very real legal sense for American gun owners. Talk of banning (again not directed at you) or restricting the AR 15 is long term no different to talk of banning the M1 Garand or Mini 14 etc. Other than meaningless aesthetics they're on the same curve.
2
1
BMSOBx2
Posts
2087
Joined
2/18/2017
Location
Antioch, CA, USA
8/4/2019 6:03pm
"[i]sales of weapons like AR-15's[/i]" I don't disagree with your point on vetting however what specifically is it about the AR 15 that requires extra checks...
"sales of weapons like AR-15's"

I don't disagree with your point on vetting however what specifically is it about the AR 15 that requires extra checks and what other firearms also qualify as being like it?

There's a temptation to dismiss this as pure semantics but the vagueness surrounding the exact specifics has, imo, only poisoned the well and hindered one side from engaging in serious debate with the other. The pro gun side is broadly deeply suspicious (rightly or wrongly) of those on the opposite end of the argument, believing them to be on an ideological crusade to ultimately ban all firearms.

I'm not directing this at you but meaningless statements such as "military style", "assault rifle", "military grade", "automatic" "black rifles" etc don't help in this perception. I think we all know what these things mean to many people in an aesthetic sense, ideologically at least, but not what they could actually come to mean practically in a very real legal sense for American gun owners. Talk of banning (again not directed at you) or restricting the AR 15 is long term no different to talk of banning the M1 Garand or Mini 14 etc. Other than meaningless aesthetics they're on the same curve.
You say potato, I say potatoe. The public doesn't care nor should they. Assault weapons? How narrow does your definition have to be before you feel better? How about we call them weapons of mass destruction? Oh no that one's already taken.
1
RONJ OSE
Posts
352
Joined
3/15/2019
Location
USA
8/4/2019 6:03pm
This is a hard subject to solve.
Infringe on people’s rights but some people don’t die
Don’t infringe on peoples rights but still let people die.
Something needs to be done but that solution is a hard one to come up with but needs to be talked about.
But what it comes down to is we can’t do anything our Congress has to they have to sit down and talk.
A federal data base would help there’s other options but out right banning a weapon/weapons is dumb.
But what really needs to be done is we HAVE TO HARDEN THE TARGETS. 89% of mass shootings are in “gun free zones”
Harden the schools
Harden the malls
Don’t make them easy targets, how many shootings has anyone heard of in court houses, or any other government buildings with armed guards.
Another issue I have is everything has to do with mass shootings but there are more people shot every month in Chicago and Baltimore then all modern “mass shootings”
3
APLMAN99
Posts
12826
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
8/4/2019 6:07pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
You really can't be both, though a good number of us (myself included) try to fool ourselves into believing that we can be. It's a right...
You really can't be both, though a good number of us (myself included) try to fool ourselves into believing that we can be. It's a right that "shall not be infringed", and any sort of control is by definition an infringement.

It pains me to reach the point I have where I now question the sanity of the Second Amendment. I've grown up shooting a gun out ththe backyard before the age of 10, always respected the dangers of weapons, and feel that I have always acted responsibly with them. I no longer keep guns in the house because our youngest child is somewhat special needs and didn't always understand consequences of his Impulsiveness. But it wasn't because of any morality play on guns themselves.

Now I'm realizing that I may be suffering from cognitive dissonance when it comes to guns. I understand the Constitutional issues involved and don't believe that we should be passing laws that violate the Constitution so maybe it's time to explore whether it'd be good to amend a portion of it. We've had to do it to correct the notion that slaves were not only allowed, but were the equivalent of 5/9ths of a person. The Constitution isn't a sacred text, it's just how our population chooses to determine how we interact and govern. That should always be open to debate about change and those changes should have a very high bar to clear in order to be adopted, but it just may be time to think about it.

The whole issue is confusing as hell and it absolutely hurts my soul to think I may have been fooling myself for decades about this.....
BMSOBx2 wrote:
They ratified the 18th Amendment and then repealed it because it was a bad choice. Sometimes people, even the founding fathers make mistakes.
borg wrote:
There happens to lots of gun control laws all over the country that do not violate the Constitution. You both should check into it before you...
There happens to lots of gun control laws all over the country that do not violate the Constitution. You both should check into it before you decide that you cant be pro 2nd and pro gun control.

I'll help you: Gun control laws

No help needed.

I'll never deny that courts have tried to rationalize infringement, even though the Constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed......

2
RONJ OSE
Posts
352
Joined
3/15/2019
Location
USA
8/4/2019 6:09pm
And there are so many guns in America is a whole that all of them could never be confiscated
Dropbear
Posts
1568
Joined
5/7/2008
Location
Adelaide, AU
8/4/2019 6:21pm
Social media has to come in to play here. Sure, we have a bit of fun slagging each other off but all in the spirit of moto.
Some people out there can’t handle it and are unable to differentiate it from reality. You only have to get on Twitter for 5 minutes before a fight breaks out. You can tell some are psycho’s. The crazies are always going to be able to get guns, knives or make bombs.
1
KennyT
Posts
4411
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Vista, CA, USA
Fantasy
8/4/2019 7:01pm Edited Date/Time 8/4/2019 7:09pm
I wonder if the shootings would decrease if there were laws that would prohibit media from spreading the identity of the murderer world wide. I know these are terribly disturbed psychos, but something tells me part of their sick minds want to go down in history as the next big mass murderer.

I just don’t see much stopping these individuals from killing if they have set their minds on destruction. It wouldn’t be hard to wipe out 20+ people with a truck/auto, home made bomb or whatever. I’m certainly not a “gun nut” ...far from it, I just don’t see them as the real problem. There r multiple ways to kill
4
8/4/2019 7:07pm
I’m convinced there’s a bigger issue here, and I’m not exactly sure what it is. Guns have been around forever, and mass shootings weren’t ever really a problem. They happened, but it was pretty rare and not near the frequency that it happens now. I thought it may be a mental health issue, but again people, including the mentally unstable, have been around longer than the guns. So what has changed in the last couple decades to cause such a spike in mass shootings? What is different now? Focusing on the guns is focusing on the symptom, IMO. Guns are just a tool to do the job. Take the guns and it’ll be bombs instead. I will say that it appears the uptick in mass shootings seems to correlate with the rise of the internet, both beginning to really take off in the late 90s. Is it that the mentally unstable get online, find other likeminded unstable people that rationalize their thoughts and convince them to carry out these acts? What is it that is causing so many people to want to commit mass murder? We need to identify the root of the problem and figure out WHY these people are wanting to commit such acts.
8
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14156
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
8/4/2019 7:14pm
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
Vein, vane, vain?

Hey FALCON!!!
Falcon wrote:
Vein: a structure through which blood flows. Also describes the way certain ores lie in the ground. (A "vein" of silver winds through the rock.) Vain...
Vein: a structure through which blood flows. Also describes the way certain ores lie in the ground. (A "vein" of silver winds through the rock.)
Vain: pertaining to vanity or self-interest. A vain person does things for no other reason than to glorify himself. When we say "in vain" it means essentially that there was no impact to the outside world: only to those involved.
Vane: a flat surface designed to direct or be directed by the flow of a fluid. A weathervane is a good example, or those inserts we sometimes put in our intakes.
Atta boy!

Sorry, GuyB, I had a chuckle on your behalf.
8/4/2019 7:23pm
BMSOBx2 wrote:
You say potato, I say potatoe. The public doesn't care nor should they. Assault weapons? How narrow does your definition have to be before you feel...
You say potato, I say potatoe. The public doesn't care nor should they. Assault weapons? How narrow does your definition have to be before you feel better? How about we call them weapons of mass destruction? Oh no that one's already taken.
Much of the American public are pro gun and do care though. The descriptions Iv'e raised weren't created by me, Iv'e simply highlighted them in response to their constant misusage time and time again, particularly via the msm. Banning firearms with a military aesthetic seems to be their sole tunnel-vision focus, and yet it will make absolutely NO difference whatsoever to the frequency of these appalling murders. Zero. It's a pointless waste of time that if anything only further confirms the fears of those on the pro gun side of the debate that the antis will act over the most spurious, illogical reasoning and can't be trusted.

If you wish to restrict or ban the AR etc because it's a semi-automatic (and thus all magazine fed centrefire self loaders) then that at least is the basis for a logical argument with some bearing on reality. I don't agree with it personally (especially in the case of America) but I can at least see where someone is coming from with such an argument.
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14156
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
8/4/2019 7:34pm
I've said it before, but it isn't the AR, or AK.
Both of those are carbines.

I own a semi-automatic RIFLE. It looks less frightening than an AR, but is capable of sooo much more damage. Yes, the rounds will cost you more, but you will gain that in effectiveness.

Here's the difference. On the right is an AR round.
Mine is in 6.8 SPC. Deadlier than the. 223 or 5.6, but on the left is a 30 caliber rifle round.

So much more energy. With FMJs, you could easily get 3-4 if they are lined up, with soft or ballistic tips, even a limb shot is easily fatal.

The rifle I shoot those from is your ordinary hunting rifle.
RONJ OSE
Posts
352
Joined
3/15/2019
Location
USA
8/4/2019 7:40pm
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
I've said it before, but it isn't the AR, or AK. Both of those are carbines. I own a semi-automatic RIFLE. It looks less frightening than...
I've said it before, but it isn't the AR, or AK.
Both of those are carbines.

I own a semi-automatic RIFLE. It looks less frightening than an AR, but is capable of sooo much more damage. Yes, the rounds will cost you more, but you will gain that in effectiveness.

Here's the difference. On the right is an AR round.
Mine is in 6.8 SPC. Deadlier than the. 223 or 5.6, but on the left is a 30 caliber rifle round.

So much more energy. With FMJs, you could easily get 3-4 if they are lined up, with soft or ballistic tips, even a limb shot is easily fatal.

The rifle I shoot those from is your ordinary hunting rifle.
The 5.56 was designed to injure not kill the whole post was to tumble and tear up someone’s insides.
The bullet is small but does a lot of damage inside
1
BMSOBx2
Posts
2087
Joined
2/18/2017
Location
Antioch, CA, USA
8/4/2019 7:52pm
Yada yada yada. I still say it's semantics meanwhile back at the ranch the issue isn't being addressed while we squabble about definitions.
1
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14156
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
8/4/2019 7:55pm
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
I've said it before, but it isn't the AR, or AK. Both of those are carbines. I own a semi-automatic RIFLE. It looks less frightening than...
I've said it before, but it isn't the AR, or AK.
Both of those are carbines.

I own a semi-automatic RIFLE. It looks less frightening than an AR, but is capable of sooo much more damage. Yes, the rounds will cost you more, but you will gain that in effectiveness.

Here's the difference. On the right is an AR round.
Mine is in 6.8 SPC. Deadlier than the. 223 or 5.6, but on the left is a 30 caliber rifle round.

So much more energy. With FMJs, you could easily get 3-4 if they are lined up, with soft or ballistic tips, even a limb shot is easily fatal.

The rifle I shoot those from is your ordinary hunting rifle.
RONJ OSE wrote:
The 5.56 was designed to injure not kill the whole post was to tumble and tear up someone’s insides. The bullet is small but does a...
The 5.56 was designed to injure not kill the whole post was to tumble and tear up someone’s insides.
The bullet is small but does a lot of damage inside
OK, something broke.
I'll try it again.

SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14156
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
8/4/2019 8:00pm
Ron, what happened is, they made an easier round to shoot, but be less lethal.
Wounded soldiers are far more burdensome than dead ones.
So let's wound as many as we can, and make them have to care for them. The .30 caliber rifle will kill you, and my hunting rifle will send those down range at the same rate as my carbine AR.
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14156
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
8/4/2019 8:03pm
BMSOBx2 wrote:
Yada yada yada. I still say it's semantics meanwhile back at the ranch the issue isn't being addressed while we squabble about definitions.
Right.
Some people have loose screws.

Find them, and deal with them. Don't screw my pooch.

The only massacre my AR sees is on pigs.
1
RONJ OSE
Posts
352
Joined
3/15/2019
Location
USA
8/4/2019 8:04pm
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
Ron, what happened is, they made an easier round to shoot, but be less lethal. Wounded soldiers are far more burdensome than dead ones. So let's...
Ron, what happened is, they made an easier round to shoot, but be less lethal.
Wounded soldiers are far more burdensome than dead ones.
So let's wound as many as we can, and make them have to care for them. The .30 caliber rifle will kill you, and my hunting rifle will send those down range at the same rate as my carbine AR.
I know what your saying
Mr. G
Posts
4225
Joined
12/23/2009
Location
Riverside, CA, USA
8/4/2019 8:04pm
Failed Psych case. I call for higher standards and drugs that can't force a person into homicide. So unpredictable. Some people feel they are helped by these Meds and some get sent around the bend. It's a crap shoot. Psych Meds are behind almost every one of these massacres.
1
JAFO92
Posts
5733
Joined
3/21/2016
Location
BFE, TX, USA
8/4/2019 8:17pm
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
Right.
Some people have loose screws.

Find them, and deal with them. Don't screw my pooch.

The only massacre my AR sees is on pigs.
Karl, remember the saying about teaching a pig to sing?

SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14156
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
8/4/2019 9:22pm
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
Right.
Some people have loose screws.

Find them, and deal with them. Don't screw my pooch.

The only massacre my AR sees is on pigs.
JAFO92 wrote:
Karl, remember the saying about teaching a pig to sing?

Ha! One of the few things I do remember.

Dammit, Bobby! (Sorry, I love saying that)

I don't know where we're going here, but I know how well armed I'll be.

Post a reply to: Mass Shooting in El Paso, Texas

The Latest