Mass Shootings

[fattyflattie 4639]

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

There's a weird disconnect here, I learned to hunt when my age was in the single digits and I'm in my 40s, been doing it my entire life. I hunt a lot less nowadays now because I don't really enjoy killing animals anymore and it seems unnecessary, but that's another story. Shooting clays is fun, though, for sure. I learned to shoot with a bolt action .243 (wish I still had that gun for nostalgia purposes but some shitpile stole it when I was in my late teens).

I was also taught that heart shots were the way to go, on deer at least, I don't know what people teach their kids nowadays.

My grandpa was the executor of an estate that had a large ranch down in south TX (Carrizo Springs/Catarina area) that ran invitation only hunts, and my dad did the wildlife management down there. and I know for a fact that anyone that showed up with a semi-automatic rifle to hunt would have been laughed at and sent back home. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, who knows, but when I see a guy hunting with an AR-15 I am instantly suspicious of his character.

And that's the way it still mostly is outside of kids and "hog hunters".   When they're big enough to handle a .243/7-08, its what they move up to.  Until then, hard to beat a low recoil 7.62 that actually fits a small frame and is easy to suppress.   

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

well it's not fatty, it's his 8 year old daughter sporting the AR (JR?) 15. Allegedly.

8 and 11.  Allegedly.  

3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Hey look, an actual groomer.

lol.  Hunting bad.  

[wildcat09 29358]

18 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

More highly regulated than firearms?  How, specifically?    They are literally regulated by the same fucking agency.  I don’t recall getting a bottle the govt thinks I shouldn’t own by sending them a tax stamp and some fingerprints    That kind of thing?

And the other being the thing this board gets hard over legalizing?   It usually sounds like wah wah war drugs wah wah but what about Uruguay wah. I’m certain you yourself have participated in the apropos thread(s). 

I can walk around nearly anywhere in Texas openly carrying a firearm. I can't walk around openly drinking alcohol in most cities and I can't have an open container in a vehicle anywhere. Go explain that to anyone who isn't a gun humper and they'll obviously think alcohol is more regulated. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

@fattyflattie can you explain your infatuation with gang violence in Chicago?

It appears to be some sort of trump card in this discussion for you but I don’t understand why.

Care to explain?

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I can walk around nearly anywhere in Texas openly carrying a firearm. I can't walk around openly drinking alcohol in most cities and I can't have an open container in a vehicle anywhere. Go explain that to anyone who isn't a gun humper and they'll obviously think alcohol is more regulated. 

You cant walk around firing a weapon either.  You certainly can carry either a beer, or a firearm.   Pretty sure it's not legal to go around firing weapons out of a vehicle, but can transport either firearms or alcohol to the destination you intend to use them.  Any more regulations you're unsure about?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

To drive a car, my 15 year old kid has to have dozens of hours of classroom time, additional dozens of hours of supervised road practice, get a license, have liability insurance, and the car must also be registered and inspected.

24 months later she can just walk into a store and buy an AR-15 with zero training, licensing, supervision, or direction.

Anyone who thinks this is logical is a dumb sack of flea bitten dogshit.

Also @fattyflattie I didn’t see your response here. Does this reality make sense to you?

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

@fattyflattie can you explain your infatuation with gang violence in Chicago?

It appears to be some sort of trump card in this discussion for you but I don’t understand why.

Care to explain?

I couldn't care less if I tried.  I think it's curious why the public focus' on gun deaths here, but not there.  And when it's committed by this type of weapon, but not another.  The left specifically avoids discussing Chicago for several reasons.  It's a D run city, it has very strict gun laws, and it's a calling card for the R's.  The R's like to point out the failure Lightfoot had there, the failure of their strict gun laws, and likely some racial component to it.  So, it is taboo to discuss, I guess.   But infatuation, hardly.  Just pointing to more hypocrisy.   It is very sad that so many "others" tend to get caught up in the gang shootings.  But losing sleep over a dead or shot gang member, lol, no. 

[956 Worldwide 34736]

SA rifles are great for varmints. I get it, even I thought the FAWB was flawed for putting the little Mini-14 ranch rifle in the same box as a Tec-9. But no legislation is perfect. Not flawed enough to repeal. 
 

I used to own an SKS. Yugoslav version. Bought before the AR craze. Cheap, bought at an Abilene pawn shop. Yes, mostly for hogs.  A fantastic gun for a day of hunting them or capping varmints with a spotlight. 
 

That was a weapon of war. Do not tell me it’s a modern sporting rifle. The Yugoslavs procured the tooling from the USSR, made them, and handed them to legions of Ivans in the event they needed to kill Johns in the Balkan Peninsula.

It had a ten round fixed box magazine. That’s what their soldiers got and if they ever fought John outside of Belgrade, they’d have used a ten round box fixed box magazine. 
 

Ban high-capacity magazines, ban stripper clips, all magazines fixed. At the least, make these assholes stop to reload. Five rounds would be better. Do not tell me you need more, do not explain the scenario that you need high capacity detachable mags. Outside of a battlefield, there isn’t one. You don’t even NEED them there. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Also @fattyflattie I didn’t see your response here. Does this reality make sense to you?

I guess it would depend on the individual.  At 18 they can be sent across the world as cannon fodder, get married, start a company, borrow money, buy a house, go to college, get tattoos, the sky is the limit.  They cannot drink or use tobacco, or rent a car thru some places (though our friends in Europe have no issue with the first two)  Makes you wonder why we can send someone to their death and dismemberment, but not let have a cigarette.  Or take out a 250k loan for college, but not purchase an arm to protect themselves should they live in a crime ridden area.   

Also, I believe he meant 16, or 36 months.  18 is the age to purchase long arms. 

[wildcat09 29358]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I couldn't care less if I tried.  I think it's curious why the public focus' on gun deaths here, but not there.  And when it's committed by this type of weapon, but not another.  The left specifically avoids discussing Chicago for several reasons.  It's a D run city, it has very strict gun laws, and it's a calling card for the R's.  The R's like to point out the failure Lightfoot had there, the failure of their strict gun laws, and likely some racial component to it.  So, it is taboo to discuss, I guess.   But infatuation, hardly.  Just pointing to more hypocrisy.   It is very sad that so many "others" tend to get caught up in the gang shootings.  But losing sleep over a dead or shot gang member, lol, no. 

It's not taboo to discuss and the reason its gun laws aren't more successful at preventing violence is obvious: Gary, Indiana, where it's very easy to buy guns, is half an hour outside Chicago.

[TexPx 2323]

Ah yes, another worse than specious argument: We can't talk about mass shootings and gun control because of Chicago's murder rate. Ideologue talk.
 

Chicago has around 2.7 million population.
According to their Chamber they had 30.7 million foreign and domestic visitors in 2021.
The amount of people not murdered there is pretty impressive!

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

22 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I guess it would depend on the individual.  At 18 they can be sent across the world as cannon fodder, get married, start a company, borrow money, buy a house, go to college, get tattoos, the sky is the limit.  They cannot drink or use tobacco, or rent a car thru some places (though our friends in Europe have no issue with the first two)  Makes you wonder why we can send someone to their death and dismemberment, but not let have a cigarette.  Or take out a 250k loan for college, but not purchase an arm to protect themselves should they live in a crime ridden area.   

Also, I believe he meant 16, or 36 months.  18 is the age to purchase long arms. 

So…what is your answer? Does the reality he described make sense or not?

[DigglerontheHoof 21205]

40 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

@fattyflattie can you explain your infatuation with gang violence in Chicago?

It appears to be some sort of trump card in this discussion for you but I don’t understand why.

Care to explain?

Hint:  Skin pigment is a huge driver...

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

30 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I couldn't care less if I tried.

First, I need to point out that you're a liar. Of course you care. If you didn't actually care you wouldn't bring it up ALL THE TIME. But you do bring it up all the time because you do care.

But to address whatever point you think you're making....

Quote

 I think it's curious why the public focus' on gun deaths here, but not there.  And when it's committed by this type of weapon, but not another.  The left specifically avoids discussing Chicago for several reasons.  It's a D run city, it has very strict gun laws, and it's a calling card for the R's.  The R's like to point out the failure Lightfoot had there, the failure of their strict gun laws, and likely some racial component to it.  So, it is taboo to discuss, I guess.   But infatuation, hardly.  Just pointing to more hypocrisy.   It is very sad that so many "others" tend to get caught up in the gang shootings.  But losing sleep over a dead or shot gang member, lol, no. 

"The public" has been focused on gang violence for decades. There have been all sorts of public policy initiatives designed to try and address what is a huge problem in our society. The idea that one group doesn't talk about it or focus on it is a completely made up notion in your head.

But what, specifically, does Chicago teach you about gun violence/control? What is the lesson you draw from it?

[C-Man 27237]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm just glad he didn't go with the tried and true reason you shouldn't hunt with an AR.  I've read here they blow up everything they hit, and immediately decapitate it.  Not good.  

Third graders, boss.  And I'll worry about when and how to introduce them into our family hobbies.  Yall worry about the country crumbling because we finally decided to take gun violence super cereal, but only outside of cities that shall not be mentioned because reasons, and only for certain super scary guns because more reasons. 

Your side doesn't give a squirt of piss about solving gun violence issues in places like Chicago so long as it's poor people killing other poor people (bonus points if they're minorities AND poor).

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20461]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

First, I need to point out that you're a liar. Of course you care. If you didn't actually care you wouldn't bring it up ALL THE TIME. But you do bring it up all the time because you do care.

But to address whatever point you think you're making....

"The public" has been focused on gang violence for decades. There have been all sorts of public policy initiatives designed to try and address what is a huge problem in our society. The idea that one group doesn't talk about it or focus on it is a completely made up notion in your head.

But what, specifically, does Chicago teach you about gun violence/control? What is the lesson you draw from it?

Nothing that the entire states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, the entire deep south and Texas haven't taught him or, on the obverse, that the entire countries of England or Australia haven't taught him. You can't teach a man whose argument hinges on him not learning. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

First, I need to point out that you're a liar. Of course you care. If you didn't actually care you wouldn't bring it up ALL THE TIME. But you do bring it up all the time because you do care.

But to address whatever point you think you're making....

Let me point out to you I believe I've mentioned it twice.  And once was a surly response.  So no, not ALL THE TIME.   I want to assure you I could not care less about criminals killing each other.  Hell the more it happens, the easier it is to point to their failed policies and the less gang members are still breathing.  I can see no downside. 

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

But what, specifically, does Chicago teach you about gun violence/control? What is the lesson you draw from it?

Easy.  That criminals will always have access to firearms, regardless of the law.  It's against the law for them to have them now, they don't care.  So if you rounded up every legal citizens arms tomorrow, guess what?  All you've done is made the violence easier for those perpetrating it.  I've also learned that DA's are extremely picky on who they choose to prosecute.  

 

12 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

So…what is your answer? Does the reality he described make sense or not?

Aside from him being off by up to 12 months in his example, yes, that is the current status of our laws.    Does it make sense, I'm ok with letting someone you'll send to war have access to a firearm to hunt or protect themselves at home, yes. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Your side doesn't give a squirt of piss about solving gun violence issues in places like Chicago so long as it's poor people killing other poor people (bonus points if they're minorities AND poor).

I've been trying to tell him that the whole time - no one gaf about these criminals shooting themselves. 

Sneaking in a bit of "RaCiSt" in there really helps your argument, tho. Maybe add some "NaZi'S" next time your having trouble coming up with a valid argument. 

[YGIFS 19452]

We have lots and lots of gun laws.  But they mainly regard what you can do with one and can't do with one once you have one.  Fondren&Main can buy ten AR-15's today, unhinged as he is, and pass them out to 10 18-year old Texans with mental disabilities.  And there isn't a fucking thing anybody can do about it.  But you give one 18 year old one beer, you're locked up for a while.  

[royiv 9332]

8 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

But what, specifically, does Chicago teach you about gun violence/control? What is the lesson you draw from it?

Anytime the gun nuts play this greatest hit, it reinforces to me the need for comprehensive and tough gun control measures at the federal level. The more it gets played, it's leading me to think we need to outlaw handguns. For hunting, target and clay shooting, we really only need single shot bolt action rifles and shotguns with a three shell max capacity.

[C-Man 27237]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Let me point out to you I believe I've mentioned it twice.  And once was a surly response.  So no, not ALL THE TIME.   I want to assure you I could not care less about criminals killing each other.  Hell the more it happens, the easier it is to point to their failed policies and the less gang members are still breathing.  I can see no downside. 

Easy.  That criminals will always have access to firearms, regardless of the law.  It's against the law for them to have them now, they don't care.  So if you rounded up every legal citizens arms tomorrow, guess what?  All you've done is made the violence easier for those perpetrating it.  I've also learned that DA's are extremely picky on who they choose to prosecute.  

 

Aside from him being off by up to 12 months in his example, yes, that is the current status of our laws.    Does it make sense, I'm ok with letting someone you'll send to war have access to a firearm to hunt or protect themselves at home, yes. 

I think it's very telling that @fattyflattieseems to think the US will quickly turn into The Purge if we do anything to regulate a certain segment of guns.

[Gatorubet 30268]

Quote

• “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.

Yeah, if we just ignore the 62 million people (and most populous state) equal to about about thirty red states - and throw that away - the number are not as bad. 

Nope, no NRA bullshit here. 

[C-Man 27237]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I've been trying to tell him that the whole time - no one gaf about these criminals shooting themselves. 

Sneaking in a bit of "RaCiSt" in there really helps your argument, tho. Maybe add some "NaZi'S" next time your having trouble coming up with a valid argument. 

If nobody "GAF" then why is gang-land Chicago consistently parroted by hard-core gun proponents as an example of responsible gun law measures? (I would argue the "nobody" part of your argument. I think a certain segment of our society does not care. I'll give you one guess which segment that is. We can argue all day long how best to curb that violence but as long as you've got crippling poverty, you're going to have a segment that seemingly has no other alternative to get by than slinging drugs and playing the gang game.)

[fattyflattie 4639]

9 minutes ago, royiv said:

Anytime the gun nuts play this greatest hit, it reinforces to me the need for comprehensive and tough gun control measures at the federal level. The more it gets played, it's leading me to think we need to outlaw handguns. For hunting, target and clay shooting, we really only need single shot bolt action rifles and shotguns with a three shell max capacity.

All it tells me is I need to start donating to LaPierre again.  Embezzling and mistress lifestyle be damned.  

Please send your best and brightest pols after handguns.  Please, please, please. 

[YGIFS 19452]

Yeah, that the "what about Chicago" trope is still a thing baffles me to this day.  I grew up not terribly far from Archer Heights on the West Side of Chicago.  What the gun nut morons never fucking get is actually best summarized by the great Urban Poet, Omar.  "It's all in the game."  There is a roughly 32 square block area in West Chicago and a roughly 32 square block area in South Chicago that has a tremendous amount of gun violence.  Sadly, over the years, some innocent bystanders (elderly and children) have lost their lives to crossfire.  95%+ of it is confined to young men in the gang and drug trade.  If you are not involved in the gang and drug world, and avoid those areas after dark, you can somehow manage to stay alive in/around Chicago.  Thankfully, for a city/metro area as massive as it is, most of us manage to stay alive, avoid gunfire, and grow old.  

What you fucking dipshit Texas hicks don't seem to get is our other concern aside from the fact that you wouldn't last 10 seconds as good guy with gun in West Chicago despite your tac vast and range experience.  Our concern continues to be non-elective gun violence.  I don't have to venture into West Chicago at midnight during the Summer to broker a deal for heroin and small arms.  But I have to send my children to school, shop for groceries, attend church service, and occasionally hit up the mall.  And we're all a little exhausted with your utterly sublime inability to comprehend that keeping places like that safe from assault rifles has fucking zero to do with your freedom to go shoot clays.  

Don't want no Chicago shootin' shit, don't go do no Chicago shootin' shit.  Say what you want about my hometown, they don't really roam the streets of Texas looking for white people to pop a cap in.  We can also not have children's faces removed by assault rifles and still have Chicago be the butt of your jokes.  Ain't all binary.  

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

you're going to have a segment that seemingly has no other alternative to get by than slinging drugs and playing the gang game.

Yep.  There's just no other way. 

[TexArcher 37989]

Flatty, you absolutely suck.

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Flatty, you absolutely suck.

I’d have to disagree, but opinions and assholes and whatnot.  Good talk. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

22 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Let me point out to you I believe I've mentioned it twice.  And once was a surly response.  So no, not ALL THE TIME.   I want to assure you I could not care less about criminals killing each other.  Hell the more it happens, the easier it is to point to their failed policies and the less gang members are still breathing.  I can see no downside. 

 

We know that you place no value on any lives that aren't your children. You made that explicitly clear to us when you said that there was no number of dead children that would change your opinion on gun control other than '2'.

Again, I appreciate your honesty. We need to understand the psychopathic nature of what we're up against here, in you're the embodiment of it. So thank you.

 

Quote

Easy.  That criminals will always have access to firearms, regardless of the law.  It's against the law for them to have them now, they don't care.  So if you rounded up every legal citizens arms tomorrow, guess what?  All you've done is made the violence easier for those perpetrating it.  I've also learned that DA's are extremely picky on who they choose to prosecute.  

 

Ok, so by zooming in on roughly 5 square miles, you've found proof that gun control doesn't work. If we zoomed out juuustttt a bit and I pointed to hundreds of geographical locations much much bigger that have strict gun control laws and a fraction of the gun violence we have in the US, I assume you would entirely dismiss those examples, right?  

 

Quote

Aside from him being off by up to 12 months in his example, yes, that is the current status of our laws.    Does it make sense, I'm ok with letting someone you'll send to war have access to a firearm to hunt or protect themselves at home, yes. 

That's not what I asked. I'm asking if it makes sense for us to have more guardrails in place for people to drive cars than to carry guns around. Does that make sense to you?

[gmr548 16590]

“Gun deaths”.  I couldn’t give a single less fuck about suicide by gun. Negative fucks, really.  Maybe you missed post 3693?

I mean, I don’t have much else to say that hasn’t already been said, but I really don’t know how one is supposed to respond to this. Counterintuitive, but your twisted position prompts pity as much as anything. Just sad.

[Brisketexan 105173]

23 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Our concern continues to be non-elective gun violence.  I don't have to venture into West Chicago at midnight during the Summer to broker a deal for heroin and small arms.  But I have to send my children to school, shop for groceries, attend church service, and occasionally hit up the mall.  And we're all a little exhausted with your utterly sublime inability to comprehend that keeping places like that safe from assault rifles has fucking zero to do with your freedom to go shoot clays.  

QFT.

The majority of gun homicides are tied to other criminal activity.  Want to avoid THAT particular risk?  Avoid doing drug deals and whatnot.  In other words, for the vast majority of society, that type of homicide is not a risk.  There's functionally zero chance I'll be killed in a drug deal gone bad, because I don't engage in drug deals (yes, stray bullets happen, but I also happen to not frequent the hot corner where the deals go down, so I'm still not particularly concerned).

So, for the vast majority of society, what IS the risk when it comes to firearms?  Well, for everyone, it's going to school, the movies, the mall, wherever.  And hey, if you're a minority, layer on the extra layer of likelihood of being the target of stochastic terrorism (which is ALSO enthusiastically fomented by the same people Fattie votes for - shocking how the pols who fight for freely available firearms with max firepower are the SAME pols who incite their followers to blame the "other" for every ill, and to spur them on to violent "solutions" to that "problem"), so they can purify society and get rid of invaders and whatnot: brown people at an El Paso Wal-Mart, black people getting groceries in Buffalo, jews at synagogue in Pittsburgh, a nice little minority stewpot in Allen, etc. etc..  We're not too keen on 1) being hunted, and 2) people like Fattie doing everything they can to insure that the people hunting us can easily arm themselves to the teeth (how about this for contrast: when it comes to "things that are hunted," ducks have more protection via firearms regulations than brown people do: if you are caught in the field just in POSSESSION of a shotgun that can hold more than three shells during duck season, you get popped.  But if you said "no, I'm just out here patrolling for wetbacks," you could be carrying a weapon with a 30 round mag, no problem.  Ducks.  Ducks get tighter firearm regs than people).

But Fattie doesn't care.  Because neither he nor his kids have been shot yet.  That's it.  Full stop.  That's the only thing that could get him to care, and then, only maybe.

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Brisketexan

[royiv 9332]

21 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

 

We know that you place no value on any lives that aren't your children. You made that explicitly clear to us when you said that there was no number of dead children that would change your opinion on gun control other than '2'.

Even that's not true. He said he wouldn't care until after at least one of his kids got slaughtered so at least one of them is expendable. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

21 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You made that explicitly clear to us when you said that there was no number of dead children that would change your opinion on gun control other than '2'.

Did I? 

24 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I'm asking if it makes sense for us to have more guardrails in place for people to drive cars than to carry guns around. Does that make sense to you?

I'm not against guardrails.  I'm against imaginary scapegoats. 

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But Fattie doesn't care.  Because neither he nor his kids have been shot yet.  That's it.  Full stop.  That's the only thing that could get him to care, and then, only maybe.

Sometimes I think you're better than this, as you've had a good career as an attorney.  Then I'm reminded even yall must get lazy too, I suppose. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm not against guardrails.  I'm against imaginary scapegoats. 

Is this a problem? Yes or no...?

Are these children's lives imaginary to you? I think they are, as you've made clear only the death of your own children would change your mind regarding gun control.

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Is this a problem? Yes or no...?

Are these children's lives imaginary to you? I think they are, as you've made clear only the death of your own children would change your mind regarding gun control.

You know when someone is winning an argument, when they continue to bring up things they "remember", but when receipts are requested, onto something new. 

Of course they are important.  Can you please provide one with children only?  I understand your chart will look significantly different then, and you're not going to want to, but I think its important we separate children and adults.  Oh and something like 70% of your chart is 18-19 yo's.  

[YGIFS 19452]

Yes, but you see---those other countries are mostly white.  

[Born to Run 6569]

If nobody "GAF" then why is gang-land Chicago consistently parroted by hard-core gun proponents as an example of responsible gun law measures? (I would argue the "nobody" part of your argument. I think a certain segment of our society does not care. I'll give you one guess which segment that is. We can argue all day long how best to curb that violence but as long as you've got crippling poverty, you're going to have a segment that seemingly has no other alternative to get by than slinging drugs and playing the gang game.)

Chicago is brought up to prove the point that we need more white people with guns to deter black people from committing crimes and being all uppity.

Same weak shit when anything happens in a D area. Torrential rain in California means Dem Are Incompetent. (It matters not when Florida is hammered by a hurricane months later.

This sort of conservative thinking may be racist, bullshit, but it is an intellectual step above the more common "well I don't know I just feel that way"

[Goofyboy 3293]

18 - 19 year old lives don’t count. Got it.

I asked my 11 year old if he thought he would go to college. He asked me if kids get shot there…

[Chuckie Finster 22702]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You know when someone is winning an argument, when they continue to bring up things they "remember", but when receipts are requested, onto something new. 

Of course they are important.  Can you please provide one with children only?  I understand your chart will look significantly different then, and you're not going to want to, but I think its important we separate children and adults.  Oh and something like 70% of your chart is 18-19 yo's.  

Fatalities
Rachel Scott (aged 17), killed on grass outside west entrance by Harris
Daniel Rohrbough (aged 15), killed at bottom of stairs leading to west entrance by Harris
William David Sanders (aged 47), shot in hallway adjacent library by Harris; died of blood loss in a science classroom
Kyle Velasquez (aged 16), killed while sitting in a chair near the middle of the north computer table in the library by Klebold
Steven Curnow (aged 14), killed at the west end of the south computer table in the library by Harris
Cassie Bernall (aged 17), killed under library table No. 19 by Harris
Isaiah Shoels (aged 18), killed under library table No. 16 by Harris
Matthew Kechter (aged 16), killed under library table No. 16 by Klebold
Lauren Townsend (aged 18), killed under library table No. 2 by Klebold
John Tomlin (aged 16), killed next to library table No. 6 by Klebold; after being wounded by Harris
Kelly Fleming (aged 16), killed next to library table No. 2 by Harris
Daniel Mauser (aged 15), killed under library table No. 9 by Harris
Corey DePooter (aged 17), killed under library table No. 14 by Klebold

 

Sorry Isaiah and Lauren, fatty doesn't consider your life statistically significant.  
 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Chuckie Finster

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

18 - 19 year old lives don’t count. Got it.

That's what you took from that?  Other than losing an incendiary talking point, why shouldn't they be separated?  

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Sorry Isaiah and Lauren, fatty doesn't consider your life statistically significant.  

Great argument champ.  

[Captainant 27688]

it's an incredible display of aggytude from fatty to complain about the facts and data to say "WHY ARE YOU COUNTING EIGHTEEN AND NINETEEN YEAR OLDS AS TEENAGERS??? ITS A LIBRUL CONSPIRSUH TO TAKE MUH GUUUUUUUNNNNNSSSRRRRAAAAGBLBLBLBLBL"

[YGIFS 19452]

^
Well that's a fucking disturbing conversation.  

On Mother's Day yesterday, my mother was asking about my oldest and school.  We talked about art and piano and Spanish immersion and a buncha stuff.  And somebody else at lunch brought up Brownsville and Uvalde.  And my mother naively asked (she still lives in Chicago) about school shootings in Texas.  I told her the story I have told on here a few times.  Awhile back my daughter asked, "Why would somebody want to shoot me and my friends" and without putting any thought into it, I replied, "Because they can, sweetheart."  My mother began to weep, and before the first tear came, my cousin had to chime in with "Well, you can thank George Floyd for that."  24 hours later, I am completely lost as the mental gymnastics as to how that conclusion could possibly be reached even on OANN.  

But it reminded me of Daniel Perry, Kyle Rittenhouse, and many others like that at protests.  You good guys with guns wanna to "clean house" and stop senseless violence.........I'll give you maps, contacts, and briefs on where, when, and how to hit up certain areas in Chicago.  You can go stop all the gun violence there once and for all.  You can finally be the men you pretend to be in front of your fathers.  You want to "what about Chicago?".......I can get you inside the shit inside the shit inside the shit.  And you can go heavy and take care of business once and for all, just like you dream about.  But you won't.  Because you're cowards.  You're 1W-36L in Texas in the last 45 years.  You're never there when we need you.  You're clutching a remote control when the shit goes down, as always.  You want to do some cleaning, you call me.  Until then, shut the fuck up about Chicago.  The opportunities to save the day are boundless and you can't back away from the keyboard.  At least some of us are working to keep kids safe while you jerk off to caliber.  

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it's an incredible display of aggytude from fatty to complain about the facts and data to say "WHY ARE YOU COUNTING EIGHTEEN AND NINETEEN YEAR OLDS AS TEENAGERS??? ITS A LIBRUL CONSPIRSUH TO TAKE MUH GUUUUUUUNNNNNSSSRRRRAAAAGBLBLBLBLBL"

You know this is recent, and how "GUNS ARE LEADING KILLER OF CHILDREN" rhetoric?  Then normal people said that doesn't sound right?  Then they looked, and once 18 and 19 yo's were added as "children" (children that can vote and be drafted, mind you) it turned out it made up something like 75% of the deaths.   AND we get a new catchy way to try and push an agenda.  Good politics, though.  kudos.  

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You know when someone is winning an argument, when they continue to bring up things they "remember", but when receipts are requested, onto something new. 

Of course they are important.  Can you please provide one with children only?  I understand your chart will look significantly different then, and you're not going to want to, but I think its important we separate children and adults.  Oh and something like 70% of your chart is 18-19 yo's.  

You think that chart would look vastly different (meaning we wouldn't look like an outlier) if we removed 18-19 year olds?

Why do you think it's important we separate children and adults? Ages 1-17, guns are the leading cause of death in the US. Is that important enough?

[C-Man 27237]

23 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm not against guardrails.  I'm against imaginary scapegoats.

The hell you aren't. I bet you're against all of this:

• Increasing the age to buy semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21 (I'd argue it should be 25)
• Universal background checks on ALL firearms purchases
• Mandatory waiting periods
• Common sense red flag laws
• Ban on high-capacity magazines
• Safe storage requirements
• Update laws to prohibit "ghost gun" sales

Hell, give me the first three or four and I'd be fucking ecstatic.

These are legitimate "guardrails" and I bet you wouldn't agree to a single one.

[Captainant 27688]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You know this is recent, and how "GUNS ARE LEADING KILLER OF CHILDREN" rhetoric?  Then normal people said that doesn't sound right?  Then they looked, and once 18 and 19 yo's were added as "children" (children that can vote and be drafted, mind you) it turned out it made up something like 75% of the deaths.   AND we get a new catchy way to try and push an agenda.  Good politics, though.  kudos.  

You been listening to Alex Jones again? Mass shooting deaths and child murders as cover to TAKE MUH GURNS is soooo 2012. Get some new material, or go sniff a wellhead.

[fattyflattie 4639]

7 minutes ago, C-Man said:

The hell you aren't. I bet you're against all of this:

• Increasing the age to buy semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21 (I'd argue it should be 25) - OK  Consider changing ability to borrow money, join military, etc to match and were good.  You're an adult or you aren't.  No reason someone shouldnt be hindered getting a SA shotgun for trap shooting, or something for home protection. 
• Universal background checks on ALL firearms purchases - Sure - I already pass. 
• Mandatory waiting periods - We talking 14 days or 1 year?
• Common sense red flag laws - lol.  "common sense"
• Ban on high-capacity magazines - Sure- IDGAF 
• Safe storage requirements - Huge proponent of safe storage. 
• Update laws to prohibit "ghost gun" sales - 100% onboard.  Make it punishable by death, idgaf.

Hell, give me the first three or four and I'd be fucking ecstatic.

These are legitimate "guardrails" and I bet you wouldn't agree to a single one.

There you go.  Easy. Same as I've maintained for 5 years of this discussion.  

[Nivek 16946]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh really?  Thanks for the heads up. It’s the ergonomics of the arm (collapsible stock) and lighter recoil, but surely you know that?.  Believe it or not, my wby’s and 70’s don’t really fit 8 yo girls.  Crazy, I know. I’ve only been hunting for 30+ years, but I’m glad I learned today that heart/lung and neck shots are the way to go.   
 

I really hope this was your attempt at presenting us your version of the Onion   If not, holy fuck  Embarrassing indeed  

 

So going with willful stupidity and perpetual victimhood then.   You are correct, I should be embarrassed for trying to communicate with you.   I'll not make that mistake again.  

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, Nivek said:

So going with willful stupidity and perpetual victimhood then.   You are correct, I should be embarrassed for trying to communicate with you.   I'll not make that mistake again.  

No more hunting tips?  I hope I can make do without.  We can speak to ignition systems, too, as you suggested.  I happen to know a little bit about those as well. 

[RomaVicta 29947]

With all of this scintillating talk about the lack of need for AR-15, have we missed any new mass shootings? Are they still news in this country? If somebody hoses down a senior prom with one of those, don't bother telling us. It doesn't count.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

58 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That's what you took from that?  Other than losing an incendiary talking point, why shouldn't they be separated?  

I'm utterly puzzled as to why you think deaths of pre-teens should be accounted differently than deaths of teens, or even deaths of 18-19 year old teens.

What is your fucking point?