Active shooter thread

[Neonmoon 38127]

4 hours ago, deadshank said:

I don’t find it “fun” at all.  It doesn’t make me feel “cool.”   It’s work and I have enough work to do already.  We don’t want or need the invasive pigs tearing up everything and running the deer off the supplemental food we put out for them during the drought. 
 

You are correct that the AR platform and most all other firearms were developed to kill people.  They can be used for other purposes, as mine are.  I’ve never been a big fan of ARs and prefer bolt-action rifles but they are more cumbersome.  
 

I don’t feel ashamed that I use a tool that some don’t like.   My use of the tool is completely within the realm of responsibility.   
 

Regarding the guy that hunts pigs with a knife, running pigs with dogs and stabbing them with a knife is more of a “hey, look at me” affair than me sitting by myself in the middle of nowhere, shooting pigs, dragging and opening them up for a quick clean up by scavengers.  
 

 

Why should I have to give my guns, I’m a responsible gun owner?

Is this the argument you are attempting to make?

[justhookit 4178]

2 hours ago, deadshank said:

2 instances it would have been the same result.  One shot / one pig / the only pig that showed up.The 3rd instance was 2 pigs showed up at the same time.  I shot the away pig first and the near pig second as it ran directly away from me.

.30-06 would be way less effective but no undoable. 

You know you’ve been on Surly too long when you scan this post and your first thought is oh shit we’ve got a cop killer here.

[Blotto 23432]

1 hour ago, Goredho said:

I honestly don't have a problem with people like you owning a high-capacity semi-automatic rifle.  Even one chambered for military rounds that are optimized for people damage (and are coincidentally good for feral pig control).  That is your right.  But I don't think that right should trump the right to life of those Uvalde children, and it sounds like you would agree.

I think both your rights as a gun owner and mass shooting victims rights to life can be protected.  Regulate the ownership of guns to ensure that the pool of gun owners does not include people like Salvador Ramos.  That's it, and it would not be hard if the majority of gun owners were of your mind.  Provided they can pass a vetting process to ensure they are responsible, law-abiding owners, everyone gets to keep the guns they have now, or want to own in the future.  They just have to accept a vetting process, just like we all do before we can legally purchase or drive a car, or legally hunt wild game, or construct a habitable dwelling, etc...

But it is when gun owners not like you take a hard line stance against any sort of gun control whatsoever that the claws come out, frustrations mount and people begin to understandably believe there is no way to work with gun owners.  So they start to work against gun owners, because the only option being made available to them is the elimination of private gun ownership.

I am a gun owner, I love to shoot, I've taught my kids how to shoot.  We live on a ranch, and guns are often a necessary tool here.  I was away on business two weeks ago, and my 13 year old son had to shoot a rattlesnake that had taken up residence in our barn.  My wife was freaking out, I was away, and he took it upon himself to ask her to get the .22 so he could do what needed to be done.  She did, and he did -- thoughtfully and safely.  I was incredibly proud of him and view it as a huge milestone in his becoming a man.

But if the only choice being offered to me is that experience of gun ownership, or a growing pile of dead kids that will never have a chance to become men (or women), then I have to side with people like Longhorn_Fan68.  Take the fucking guns.

But I would much rather gun owners just work with the rest of society to make that unnecessary.  Our internal brinksmanship is so fucking stupid.

I had a much longer post typed up, but started going deep into the weeds on some issues that there are no easy answers to (vetting, mental health, etc...). So I deleted it and just wanted to acknowledge you making a completely sensible post. I'm not a gun person, I have no need, but I'm also not a "all guns must go!" person. I actually feel like there are a lot of people on both sides of this very contentious argument that could meet in the middle with an earnest effort at an initiative like you describe. Unfortunately, the political factions warring over the issue don't often try to appeal to those in the middle. 

[Thatguy 8495]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Matthew?

Oh, also, add the "safe storage" law which -- while far less glamorous, it would likely ultimately prevent a lot more gun deaths, including suicides, accidents, and yes, crimes committed by kids who are old enough to do bad shit but not old enough to get a gun on their own so they'd use their parents' guns.

I think an age limit for purchase of a rifle or handgun, and possession of same without an adult present, would also be sound, and actually would be one of the more helpful measures that could be passed (young male brains can be a seriously fucked up thing).

I am a gun owner and hunter.  I would not be harmed by any of those laws, and I never would have been.

   I don't think any of this will work. Just like there are always the "I allow my kids to party as long as they are home" parents, there will always be the "I buy my kids any kind of gun they want because this is Merica" parents. The only way around this is to make certain types of guns illegal and I say that as a guy who owns a few of those certain types of guns.

[Brisketexan 104596]

Just now, Thatguy said:

   I don't think any of this will work. Just like there are always the "I allow my kids to party as long as they are home" parents, there will always be the "I buy my kids any kind of gun they want because this is Merica" parents. The only way around this is to make certain types of guns illegal and I say that as a guy who owns a few of those certain types of guns.

Impose full criminal liability on a parent for making a firearm accessible to a kid unsupervised, and you'll clear that shit right up.  Your kid uses an unsecured firearm to slaughter a classroom of kids?  You are charged as an accessory.  Same if he uses it to rob a convenience store, shoot a kid who pissed him off, whatever.

It's solved by a gun safe, with parent with the only one with the key (or even better, only one who knows the combo).  Around half of the firearms deaths in the US are suicides, and I'm confident that a large number of those are with a gun owned by another member of the household who doesn't secure it.  Take the pistol out of dad's nightstand and end it all.  I'm betting that a safe storage law could, right off the bat, cut hundreds and probably thousands of gun deaths a year.  Without costing a single person the "right to own a firearm."

[Willfully Horn 7913]

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

First time I went to Boston, I visited Bunker Hill.  The feral hogs had tore that hill up.

[chainsaw 9838]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Impose full criminal liability on a parent for making a firearm accessible to a kid unsupervised, and you'll clear that shit right up.  Your kid uses an unsecured firearm to slaughter a classroom of kids?  You are charged as an accessory.  Same if he uses it to rob a convenience store, shoot a kid who pissed him off, whatever.

It's solved by a gun safe, with parent with the only one with the key (or even better, only one who knows the combo).  Around half of the firearms deaths in the US are suicides, and I'm confident that a large number of those are with a gun owned by another member of the household who doesn't secure it.  Take the pistol out of dad's nightstand and end it all.  I'm betting that a safe storage law could, right off the bat, cut hundreds and probably thousands of gun deaths a year.  Without costing a single person the "right to own a firearm."

There are already laws on the books for wild animals that cover this situation. You own it, you have full responsibility motherfucker. And you need to be insured for a minimum amount.

[David Dennison 18655]

[deadshank 24651]

35 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Why should I have to give my guns, I’m a responsible gun owner?

Is this the argument you are attempting to make?

Explaining what many do with their firearms.  
 
Because you brought it up, tell me why a responsible and legal owner of firearms should not be allowed to own and use them?   In your estimation and if I’m sane, a non-felon and otherwise completely legal to posses them and I have a clearly stated purpose for their use, under what circumstances would I be compelled to relinquish them?

 

 

[deadshank 24651]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What do you think happens next?

[Brisketexan 104596]

9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

There are already laws on the books for wild animals that cover this situation. You own it, you have full responsibility motherfucker. And you need to be insured for a minimum amount.

Yep.  and we require liability insurance to own a car, which is functionally necessary for any freedom of movement in most of the country.  Freedom of movement is absolutely a core right/liberty interest, yet we impose a (rather minimal) burden on that to protect third parties.  We aren't taking away your freedom of movement -- just insuring that you can cover at least some of the damages you cause if you do so irresponsibly.

You can be held liable for harmful speech (fighting words) that cause harm to third parties.  Free speech is a core right, yet we impose some rather minimal limitations on that.

Owning/possessing weapons can and does lead to harm to third parties, with alarming frequency.  We already established that some burdens can be placed on firearm ownership without running afoul of the Constitution (a point that Scalia unambiguously agreed with and pointed out in Heller).  

The opposition to these measures finds no support in the Constitution.  It is solely a function of "I don't wanna!  MUH GUNS!"

[Longhorn_Fan68 33841]

9 minutes ago, deadshank said:

What do you think happens next?

A big fucking luau?

[Thatguy 8495]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Impose full criminal liability on a parent for making a firearm accessible to a kid unsupervised, and you'll clear that shit right up.  Your kid uses an unsecured firearm to slaughter a classroom of kids?  You are charged as an accessory.  Same if he uses it to rob a convenience store, shoot a kid who pissed him off, whatever.

It's solved by a gun safe, with parent with the only one with the key (or even better, only one who knows the combo).  Around half of the firearms deaths in the US are suicides, and I'm confident that a large number of those are with a gun owned by another member of the household who doesn't secure it.  Take the pistol out of dad's nightstand and end it all.  I'm betting that a safe storage law could, right off the bat, cut hundreds and probably thousands of gun deaths a year.  Without costing a single person the "right to own a firearm."

  If we are talking about all gun deaths then yes. If we are talking about mass shootings then no. Most of those shootings seem to be people who legally obtained their firearms, even though in a lot of cases those people should've been evaluated better. I just think we've completely jumped the shark with assault weapons. There are so many assault weapons readily available that it would be impossible to control who is getting what from where. I had a Nak-9 that I bought just because I like weird guns. When I sold it some girl pulled up and we both signed the proper paperwork and she drove off with a gun easily made full auto that uses 9mm glock magazines. Who knows where that gun is now, but one thing for sure that she wasn't the one who wanted it. Probably has a 100 round drum in it right now. Tightening up on gun laws would just push the crazies to the black market, where there is an endless supply of guns. IMO, the only way is to start outlawing assault rifles. Criminals would have them, but these kids planning on shooting up a school wouldn't have the contacts to get them.

[lemonlime 5503]

Yep.  and we require liability insurance to own a car, which is functionally necessary for any freedom of movement in most of the country.  Freedom of movement is absolutely a core right/liberty interest, yet we impose a (rather minimal) burden on that to protect third parties.  We aren't taking away your freedom of movement -- just insuring that you can cover at least some of the damages you cause if you do so irresponsibly.
You can be held liable for harmful speech (fighting words) that cause harm to third parties.  Free speech is a core right, yet we impose some rather minimal limitations on that.
Owning/possessing weapons can and does lead to harm to third parties, with alarming frequency.  We already established that some burdens can be placed on firearm ownership without running afoul of the Constitution (a point that Scalia unambiguously agreed with and pointed out in Heller).  
The opposition to these measures finds no support in the Constitution.  It is solely a function of "I don't wanna!  MUH GUNS!"

Yeah. But I’ve never caused a car accident. Why should the gubmint force me to pay for liability insurance. I’m a great driver who would never use my car irresponsibly so I should be able to do whatever I want and fuck society.

[Bookman 4610]

16 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Explaining what many do with their firearms.  
 
Because you brought it up, tell me why a responsible and legal owner of firearms should not be allowed to own and use them?   In your estimation and if I’m sane, a non-felon and otherwise completely legal to posses them and I have a clearly stated purpose for their use, under what circumstances would I be compelled to relinquish them?

 

 

Oh, I know! To put an end to children being slaughtered in their classrooms?

[Brisketexan 104596]

1 minute ago, Thatguy said:

  If we are talking about all gun deaths then yes. If we are talking about mass shootings then no. Most of those shootings seem to be people who legally obtained their firearms, even though in a lot of cases those people should've been evaluated better. I just think we've completely jumped the shark with assault weapons. There are so many assault weapons readily available that it would be impossible to control who is getting what from where. I had a Nak-9 that I bought just because I like weird guns. When I sold it some girl pulled up and we both signed the proper paperwork and she drove off with a gun easily made full auto that uses 9mm glock magazines. Who knows where that gun is now, but one thing for sure that she wasn't the one who wanted it. Probably has a 100 round drum in it right now. Tightening up on gun laws would just push the crazies to the black market, where there is an endless supply of guns. IMO, the only way is to start outlawing assault rifles. Criminals would have them, but these kids planning on shooting up a school wouldn't have the contacts to get them.

1 -- yes, I'm talking about reducing ALL gun deaths.  The fact that there are some super-easy measures that would yield a great ROI just makes it even more common-sense.

2 -- I have no argument with the fact that we're fucked in the head on assault weapons.  But.....

3 -- we sure as shit can deal with the "black market, endless supply of guns."  You sell a gun to someone without going through the mandatory FFL background check, you retain full criminal liability for any criminal act committed using that gun.  Want a defense?  Get the FFL background check paperwork -- it's a full legal defense (unless, of course, there's actual evidence that you knew it was being transferred for a criminal purpose anyway).  It's one of the reasons why we have people transfer the title to their car -- if my former car is later involved in any shenanigans, wrecks, etc., it doesn't come back to me.  You won 5 ARs, and want to sell one on the black market for a premium?  Awesome.  If that gun is used to murder someone, and we trace it back to you, you are going away for a LONG time.  Still worth the risk?  We hear that almost all guns are owned by "good, law-abiding gun owners."  Cool.  Then it shouldn't be a problem.  I can tell you that I sure as shit wouldn't sell a firearm without a FFL background check in that legal scenario, that's for sure.

[deadshank 24651]

3 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Oh, I know! To put an end to children being slaughtered in their classrooms?

You believe that’s what I will do? 

[Thatguy 8495]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1 -- yes, I'm talking about reducing ALL gun deaths.  The fact that there are some super-easy measures that would yield a great ROI just makes it even more common-sense.

2 -- I have no argument with the fact that we're fucked in the head on assault weapons.  But.....

3 -- we sure as shit can deal with the "black market, endless supply of guns."  You sell a gun to someone without going through the mandatory FFL background check, you retain full criminal liability for any criminal act committed using that gun.  Want a defense?  Get the FFL background check paperwork -- it's a full legal defense (unless, of course, there's actual evidence that you knew it was being transferred for a criminal purpose anyway).  It's one of the reasons why we have people transfer the title to their car -- if my former car is later involved in any shenanigans, wrecks, etc., it doesn't come back to me.  You won 5 ARs, and want to sell one on the black market for a premium?  Awesome.  If that gun is used to murder someone, and we trace it back to you, you are going away for a LONG time.  Still worth the risk?  We hear that almost all guns are owned by "good, law-abiding gun owners."  Cool.  Then it shouldn't be a problem.  I can tell you that I sure as shit wouldn't sell a firearm without a FFL background check in that legal scenario, that's for sure.

  Agreed

[Neonmoon 38127]

25 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Explaining what many do with their firearms.  
 
Because you brought it up, tell me why a responsible and legal owner of firearms should not be allowed to own and use them?   In your estimation and if I’m sane, a non-felon and otherwise completely legal to posses them and I have a clearly stated purpose for their use, under what circumstances would I be compelled to relinquish them?

 

 

tell me why a responsible heroin user should not be allowed to own and use heroin? I’m a sane, non-felon, and I have a clearly stated purpose for its use, under what circumstance would I be compelled to relinquish it?

 

[David Dennison 18655]

 

[chainsaw 9838]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

Greg Davis says new offense won't include forward passes or runs for positive yardage.

[Pods 7527]

We are having the wrong conversation about feral hogs.

If they are a huge problem, and most of us agree they are, the Texas Government should solve, or greatly limit the problem , rather than outsourcing it upon ranchers that are having their land torn up.

It's a state problem and the state should do far more to fix it. 

[bolverk 29399]

9 minutes ago, Pods said:

We are having the wrong conversation about feral hogs.

If they are a huge problem, and most of us agree they are, the Texas Government should solve, or greatly limit the problem , rather than outsourcing it upon ranchers that are having their land torn up.

It's a state problem and the state should do far more to fix it. 

There are some who make the counterintuitive argument that our allowing anyone to hunt feral hogs has actually made their infestation worse. In some states that don't allow it, their populations are on the decline.

Texas has a feral hog problem. Hunting them makes it worse.

[Willfully Horn 7913]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That’s  effective. I wonder what those things cost. 

Still, we can agree that feral hogs are a reasonable rural complaint. We ought be able to agree that firearms that have restrictions upon who can own them have yet to be a problem to society 

[bolverk 29399]

8 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Well, at least we know to whom Johnny Sack's going to be sending his contributions.

[Mdhorn 5911]

6 hours ago, deadshank said:

I don’t find it “fun” at all.  It doesn’t make me feel “cool.”   It’s work and I have enough work to do already.  We don’t want or need the invasive pigs tearing up everything and running the deer off the supplemental food we put out for them during the drought. 
 

You are correct that the AR platform and most all other firearms were developed to kill people.  They can be used for other purposes, as mine are.  I’ve never been a big fan of ARs and prefer bolt-action rifles but they are more cumbersome.  
 

I don’t feel ashamed that I use a tool that some don’t like.   My use of the tool is completely within the realm of responsibility.   
 

Regarding the guy that hunts pigs with a knife, running pigs with dogs and stabbing them with a knife is more of a “hey, look at me” affair than me sitting by myself in the middle of nowhere, shooting pigs, dragging and opening them up for a quick clean up by scavengers.  
 

 

You're an outlier and pretty sure, a responsible gun owner.  Like most I've read on this board, you probably walk into a store and purchase a firearm and have no problem with the paperwork.  However, there are others that do have problems with a wait, a serial number and apparently, a registry.  Those are the types that probably shouldn't have firearms.  Also, the people that go onto an airline or into a grocery store, and have to immediately fight somebody when asked to wear a mask. Those people should also be prohibited from owning firearms.  One of the problems in Maryland is the increase of ghost guns, which should be banned.  I would be fine with legislating magazine capacity. People can obviously buy more magazines but they still have to be carried or stored and any delay in a shooting can be life saving.  

[Mdhorn 5911]

52 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

If both sides have agreed on mental evaluations, how can you not have expanded background checks?  

[Pods 7527]

27 minutes ago, bolverk said:

There are some who make the counterintuitive argument that our allowing anyone to hunt feral hogs has actually made their infestation worse. In some states that don't allow it, their populations are on the decline.

Texas has a feral hog problem. Hunting them makes it worse.

That was an interesting article and it made a persuasive argument. Hunting disperses the sounders and this encourages them to colonize new areas. You have to get the whole sounder at once to eliminate the problem. 

Makes a lot of sense and makes even more a case for state level intervention. There's very little federal land in TX, so this is almost entirely the Lege's responsibility to deal with in Texas.

[chainsaw 9838]

47 minutes ago, bolverk said:

There are some who make the counterintuitive argument that our allowing anyone to hunt feral hogs has actually made their infestation worse. In some states that don't allow it, their populations are on the decline.

Texas has a feral hog problem. Hunting them makes it worse.

Quote

But if you just shoot one, the rest scatter.

Fascinating. I still think you should be able to shoot them dead as a last resort, to protect life or substantial property. Actually for property there should be some kind of insurance at this point.

[jimmyjazz 45554]

16 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

If both sides have agreed on mental evaluations, how can you not have expanded background checks?  

Because Republicans only want to protect the money flow.  They say it's about mental health, but refuse to do anything that might help keep someone with known issues from purchasing a gun.

It's a head fake.  It works.

[henrygandorf 29174]

7 hours ago, deadshank said:

Yes. When misused. 

but they're not being misused.  they're being used as designed.

guns were invented to fire projectiles to injure or kill things, right?  is there another legal product that, when used properly, as designed, kills things?  i can't think of one, but guns are certainly meant to do this.

not only that, but the 2nd amendment is expressly written in support of this.  the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about cool collectibles, douchebags posing on instagram, or killing feral hogs.  the 2nd amendment is about a well relegated militia in the wake of escaping a society controlled by a king.

i don't know the history of guns, but i can guess they were invented to do harm, either while hunting for food (necessary) or winning a war (necessary).

guns are not necessary anymore outside of law enforcement (debatable) or the military (are shooting wars still a thing?).  if they all disappeared tomorrow, life would go on.  more life, actually, if you want to just take a cursory glance at statistics.  this argument isn't about the responsible gun owner.  laws are not created for the best of us, they are created for the worst, the dumbest, the most irresponsible.  and yes, they fuck it up for everyone.

sorry, it's time to evolve.

[Fudge Nuggets 19149]

1 hour ago, deadshank said:

What do you think happens next?

You don't need an AR to blast them when they're penned up like that.

[Anastasis 23394]

41 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

You're an outlier and pretty sure, a responsible gun owner.  Like most I've read on this board, you probably walk into a store and purchase a firearm and have no problem with the paperwork.  However, there are others that do have problems with a wait, a serial number and apparently, a registry.  Those are the types that probably shouldn't have firearms.  Also, the people that go onto an airline or into a grocery store, and have to immediately fight somebody when asked to wear a mask. Those people should also be prohibited from owning firearms.  One of the problems in Maryland is the increase of ghost guns, which should be banned.  I would be fine with legislating magazine capacity. People can obviously buy more magazines but they still have to be carried or stored and any delay in a shooting can be life saving.  

I don't think that his views are outliers at all.  I think that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible and law abiding citizens. I think that it is pretty common in this discussion that people try to extrapolate norms from extremes.  I have seen pics posted of people in starbucks strapped with ARs.  I have never seen that in real life.  I have maybe seen a handful of individuals open carrying a side arm, and typically that is in rural areas of Texas during hunting season. The exceedingly vast majority of firearm owners and AR owners are responsible and law abiding citizens. There are about 150MM individuals living in households with firearms. There are over 20MM ARs in circulation in the united states. It is the single most popular platform in the US. Hundreds of millions of 30rd capacity magazines. The majority of gun violence does not involve an AR, nor does the majority of firearm related deaths. There are solutions where the vast majority of gun owners will be able to find agreement on expanding gun control measures. But reasonable gun owners are going to push back on nonsensical and performative measures.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Anastasis

[Horn Dog 9671]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Looks like a couple of those baby hogs got their heads pinned down in the top left corner of that contraption.   Damn.

[WhatTheBuck 28709]

14 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

is there another legal product that, when used properly, as designed, kills things?

Cigarettes.

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Cigarettes.

nope.

that's like saying booze or pills or cars.  they can and certainly will kill plenty of people, but they were designed to deliver nicotine which (i assume) makes people feel good.

i've never taken a drag off a cigarette in my entire life, which is remarkable considering the other assorted things i've put my body through.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

...considering the other assorted things i've put my body through.

[WhatTheBuck 28709]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

nope.

that's like saying booze or pills or cars.  they can and certainly will kill plenty of people, but they were designed to deliver nicotine which (i assume) makes people feel good.

i've never taken a drag off a cigarette in my entire life, which is remarkable considering the other assorted things i've put my body through.

It was a favorite saying of my dad the doctor. He used to call it the brown plague.

But it’s true. Cigarettes do kill. And the way they kill is by using them as designed. And they had a sinister design, to be a more efficient nicotine delivery system than a cigar or a pipe, one that was more certain to create nicotine addicts. And the tobacco companies knew their product causes cancer and covered it up. And if some of their older customers died off, they could create new ones by targeting young people with ads featuring a cartoon camel. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

41 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that his views are outliers at all.  I think that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible and law abiding citizens.

republicans - the majority of gun owners are responsible so we're not gonna do shit about any guns.

also republicans - a tiny percentage of abortions happen late in term, so we're not gonna allow any kind of abortion.

[Anastasis 23394]

47 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

republicans - the majority of gun owners are responsible so we're not gonna do shit about any guns.

also republicans - a tiny percentage of abortions happen late in term, so we're not gonna allow any kind of abortion.

In 2022 there were 45k firearms related deaths. In 2019 there were 630k abortions, and >95k abortions among women with 2+ prior abortions. There were 25 school shootings with 8 individuals killed over approximately 30MM person-days of exposure to school settings in 2019. The risk of death among children is higher with exposure to tylenol and NSAIDs. iwastoldtherewouldbenomath.gif.

[henrygandorf 29174]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

In 2022 there were 45k firearms related deaths. In 2019 there were 630k abortions, and >95k abortions among women with 2+ prior abortions. There were 25 school shootings with 8 individuals killed over approximately 30MM person-days of exposure to school settings in 2019. The risk of death among children is higher with exposure to tylenol and NSAIDs. iwastoldtherewouldbenomath.gif.

but how many people had mexican food for lunch?  because that's as relevant as what you're telling me.

100% of gun deaths are accidental/preventable.  99% of abortions take place in the first two trimesters.

when people argue against abortion, they use the most extreme examples (are you saying you're ok with a woman who's 8.5 months pregnant getting an abortion?!?).

when people argue against guns, they can use, well, pretty much any example they want, because they're all extreme.

to use your own numbers against you, in 2019, there were 45k firearms related deaths.  in 2019 there were 6,300 3rd trimester abortions, most of which were to save the life of the mother or other rare fetal anomalies.

your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for posting it.

[jimmyjazz 45554]

I love the 2+ abortion angle.  Tell me more.  Express yourself.

[Anastasis 23394]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for posting it.

I did not post an opinion. I posted statistics. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I did not post an opinion. I posted statistics. 

and in your opinion, they were relevant to what i posted.

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

and in your opinion, they were relevant to what i posted.

More relevant than abortion was to my post that you quoted. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

More relevant than abortion was to my post that you quoted. 

you're conflating abortion numbers with gun death numbers. 

all gun deaths are bad and preventable.

are you contending that all abortions are bad and preventable?

oh, and then you spent the last 2/3 of your post using statistics to say that children going to school aren't completely safe but they are really really safe.  the fuck outta here with your bullshit.

[royiv 9154]

So some deaths of school children is okay as long as it stays under a certain threshold? What is that threshold? 

[Hagbard Celine 10756]

question about sounder disposition on capture....

re: the "what happens next" question....

is there any nutritional value for feral hog meat, or do you just burn the pile in-situ after they are put down?

(narrator: we're not ready yet to talk about ways to put down the sounder en-masse)

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 minute ago, royiv said:

So some deaths of school children is okay as long as it stays under a certain threshold? What is that threshold? 

8 parts per 30mm.

[Anastasis 23394]

22 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you're conflating abortion numbers with gun death numbers. 

I did not conflate anything, but you are the one that brought abortion into the discussion. Sorry if the context of magnitude is off putting.

 

Maybe I should just adopt the hg style of posting.

 

democrats- we were a hairs breathe away from a fascist takeover of the American government.

also democrats - damn right we want to take away your ARs.

 

And I actually generally like Beto and donated to him. 

eta: unfortunately, the following is lost in him and many others.

There are solutions where the vast majority of gun owners will be able to find agreement on expanding gun control measures. But reasonable gun owners are going to push back on nonsensical and performative measures.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Anastasis