Someone else may have just shot at Trump

[Goukosan 2,453]

1 hour ago, TLHBO said:

- Registered democrat

- Donates exclusively to democrats since 2019

- Biden/Harris bumper sticker

 

= Republican

 

Fucking hell what is wrong with you?

 

Its not even that important which way they vote, but you're so determined to pass this off. Like I said, it's like you willingly want to believe the lie.

 

 

He went back and forth between supporting Republicans and Democrats over the years. 

 

Ryan Wesley Routh supported Trump in 2016.

 

He then supported Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 and donated to Democrats.

 

He then supported Republicans Vivek and Nikki Haley in the primaries this year.

 

He wanted Haley and Vivek to join together to create what he viewed as "the winning ticket"

 

 

His last switch was again to support republicans in 2024...you're talking about being delusional and biased.....

 

But meanwhile you're ignoring his most recent political leaning in 2024 and going back 4 to 5 years to say he is a Democrat lmfao. 

 

Talk about blind

 

[DynamiteCop 2,162]

2 hours ago, Mr. Impossible said:

 

🙄

 

 

Then it shouldn't matter, can you weirdos please shut the fuck up about it. 

 

 

Yet according to you, more people are defending themselves with pistols. There's a reason why a cops primary weapon is a pistol and a soldiers is a rifle. Very few Americans need a semi-auto rifle to protect the themselves. 

 

 

What exactly is the benefit of not banning them? Even if a few lives are saved per year, it's not worth removing 2 rifles off the market just because a few insecure, inherently violent mens' feeling would be hurt? 

 

 

1 non "gang banger" mass shooting should be enough. One school shooting should be enough. One accidental toddler shooting should be enough. 

 

 

You know why I mentioned a person can't just buy as much cold medicine as they want? You have such a petulant mindset. 

 

"it's not the operator, it's the tool!" 

 

Meanwhile...

 

 

We as a nation has more shootings by by accident, from children than other countries have in total. You bragged about how many homes have guns earlier, this is legacy that leaves. 

 

I don't agree with banning guns period, but my point was if you're going to attack firearms at least attack the ones primarily responsible for loss of human life.

 

If you go after semi-automatic rifles you just come off like an uninformed bandwagoner repeating political drivel. No sane human being can look at the statistics revolving around those guns and see them as some type of actual issue.

 

A pistol is a police officers primary because it's compact and easy to carry. It's more ideal for their day to day general duties and interactions. Most have AR15's as secondaries locked in their cruisers for more serious situations that require them.

 

The reality is you never know who your enemies will end up being or how many there will be. I'm not interested in intentionally handicapping myself should a situation arise that requires me to defend myself or my home. That's the basis of the second amendment, I will equip myself to the fullest extent I am able to.

 

Criminals and psychopaths are not a valid infringement on my rights, and irresponsible owners are not either. These things are unfortunate realities, but they do not involve me.

 

Our laws need to be better enforced. We need less limp dick prosecutor's who will throw the book at people so the ability to offend is lessened and the capability to reoffend wouldn't be possible for years if not decades depending on the crime.

 

We need more to be done about mental health, and better services should be offered or required depending on the illness. 

 

Taking away firearms only serves to disarm people like me, the overwhelmingly vast majority who are law abiding, mentally sound and pose zero violent threat to society. Stop trying to infringe the rights of the 99.9th percentile for the illegal actions of the 0.1.

 

As for the statistics you posted at the bottom this applies no differently than anything else I've said. The reason those things happen is because of irresponsible owners. As I stated those firearms are always in control by somebody, the person in control of those firearms did not store them correctly therefore children get killed.

 

It always comes back to the person in control, one law that I do support is that when guns are unattended they should be locked up in some capacity and if they're not the owner is at complete liability for anything that happens as a result of them not being.

 

 

 

Edited September 16 by DynamiteCop

[Mr. Impossible 587]

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop said:

I don't agree with banning guns period, but my point was if you're going to attack firearms at least attack the ones primarily responsible for loss of human life.

 

So you posted a stat claiming 5k pistol shootings Vs whatever "small number" of rifle killings. I'll take that at face value. The thing is ar15s (and other rifles) have been spotlighted for a ban is how frequently they have been used in mass shootings and how easily they are to mod. 

 

 

 

So when focused on mass shootings directly and not on "gang banger" shoot outs, the difference between handgun killings and rifle shooting is dramatically smaller. And that's being modest. 

 

They also seem to scare the police. Surely you can see the disadvantage a mass shooter has when law enforcement is afraid to confront them. 

 

Quote

If you go after semi-automatic rifles you just come off like an uninformed bandwagoner repeating political drivel. No sane human being can look at the statistics revolving around those guns and see them as some type of actual issue.

 

Take this time to read the above stats again and humble yourself. 

 

Quote

A pistol is a police officers primary because it's compact and easy to carry. It's more ideal for their day to day general duties and interactions. Most have AR15's as secondaries locked in their cruisers for more serious situations that require them.

 

Read my first paragraph a third time. 

 

Quote

The reality is you never know who your enemies will end up being or how many there will be. I'm not interested in intentionally handicapping myself should a situation arise that requires me to defend myself or my home. That's the basis of the second amendment, I will equip myself to the fullest extent I am able to.

 

So by everything you've said in here, a pistol would be your best choice but you're still double downing on the need for a rifle just to be obtuse. And how many people do you expect to break in your home? Are you John Wick or something? 

 

Quote

Criminals and psychopaths are not a valid infringement on my rights, and irresponsible owners are not either. These things are unfortunate realities, but they do not involve me.

 

Your first honest response. This is generally why I don't like people like you and Cooke. You're just assholes but try to find whatever convoluted intellectual or ideological reason for why you think the way you do. 

 

You're hateful, paranoid, and personally don't care about society outside of yourself. Just be honest about it. 

 

Quote

Our laws need to be better enforced. We need less limp dick prosecutor's who will throw the book at people so the ability to offend is lessened and the capability to reoffend wouldn't be possible for years if not decades depending on the crime.

 

Nearly every mass shooting that isn't gang related was committed by someone who hadn't committed a crime previously so that wouldn't help. 

 

That's just your angry white reaction. 

 

Quote

 

We need more to be done about mental health, and better services should be offered or required depending on the illness. 

 

I agree with that. The problem is the same people who say this will spend all day whining about their tax dollars going to mental health services. I've heard Republicans say this for a decade now and not a single one has proposed anything related to it. 

 

It's one of those political red herrings you were trying to accuse me of earlier. 

 

Quote

Taking away firearms only serves to disarm people like me, the overwhelmingly vast majority who are law abiding, mentally sound and pose zero violent threat to society. Stop trying to infringe the rights of the 99.9th percentile for the illegal actions of the 0.1.

 

That's how all laws work, retard. 

 

Quote

As for the statistics you posted at the bottom this applies no differently than anything else I've said.

 

It's literally the antithesis to what you were talking about. 

 

Quote

The reason those things happen is because of irresponsible owners. As I stated those firearms are always in control by somebody, the person in control of those firearms did not store them correctly therefore children get killed.

 

It always comes back to the person in control, one law that I do support is that when guns are unattended they should be locked up in some capacity and if they're not the owner is at complete liability for anything that happens as a result of them not being.

 

 

 

 

Every gun owner claims to be responsible and I don't trust any stupid person with a gun and from what I've seen most gun owners are idiots. I'm including cops. 

Edited September 16 by Mr. Impossible

[DynamiteCop 2,162]

3 hours ago, Mr. Impossible said:

 

So you posted a stat claiming 5k pistol shootings Vs whatever "small number" of rifle killings. I'll take that at face value. The thing is ar15s (and other rifles) have been spotlighted for a ban is how frequently they have been used in mass shootings and how easily they are to mod. 

 

 

 

So when focused on mass shootings directly and not on "gang banger" shoot outs, the difference between handgun killings and rifle shooting is dramatically smaller. And that's being modest. 

 

They also seem to scare the police. Surely you can see the disadvantage a mass shooter has when law enforcement is afraid to confront them. 

 

 

Take this time to read the above stats again and humble yourself. 

 

 

Read my first paragraph a third time. 

 

 

So by everything you've said in here, a pistol would be your best choice but you're still double downing on the need for a rifle just to be obtuse. And how many people do you expect to break in your home? Are you John Wick or something? 

 

 

Your first honest response. This is generally why I don't like people like you and Cooke. You're just assholes but try to find whatever convoluted intellectual or ideological reason for why you think the way you do. 

 

You're hateful, paranoid, and personally don't care about society outside of yourself. Just be honest about it. 

 

 

Nearly every mass shooting that isn't gang related was committed by someone who hadn't committed a crime previously so that wouldn't help. 

 

That's just your angry white reaction. 

 

 

I agree with that. The problem is the same people who say this will spend all day whining about their tax dollars going to mental health services. I've heard Republicans say this for a decade now and not a single one has proposed anything related to it. 

 

It's one of those political red herrings you were trying to accuse me of earlier. 

 

 

That's how all laws work, retard. 

 

 

It's literally the antithesis to what you were talking about. 

 

 

Every gun owner claims to be responsible and I don't trust any stupid person with a gun and from what I've seen most gun owners are idiots. I'm including cops. 

Basically every gun is easy to shoot and easy to modify, what kind of argument is that supposed to be? What does modified even mean to you? Sounds like buzzwords for things you have no actual understanding of. Trying to make it sound more scary lol?

 

I have one of the most "modified" lever action rifles you'll ever see that shoots rounds which are far more destructive than a tiny ass 5.56. You do realize that an AR-15's projectile is just a .22 right? The same size round that's used to take out squirrels and other small land varmints.

 

Destructive is the last word I would use to describe an AR-15. 5.56 is great for penetration depending on the round but the kinetic energy transferred to a target is low, it lacks mass. People just jump on them because they are cheap and plentiful, not because of what they are.

 

You can get an AR-15 for under $400, so value per dollar is high. It's also not a particularly remarkable firearm, and they are prone to failures. Stove piping, double feeds, failure to feed etc. They're really quite problematic until heavily broken in.

 

They do not scare the police more than any other gun, the failures of the Uvalde police department is a stain on them, and them alone. Cowards exibit cowardice, that's the end of that point. Thousands of other departments would have moved in immediately per their duty.

 

If you want to talk exclusively what I consider to be actual mass shootings, not a bunch of ghetto trash shootings then trust me I'm game. Those two statistics should be clearly separated and so infrequently are. In 42 years there's only been 66 incidents involving rifles, and that doesn't even break down the type of rifle or platform. Handguns account for nearly double that so the argument against rifles evaporates into the ether.

 

No talk of banning handguns, none, not a fucking word. And yet here we still are demonizing a rifle platform. You only do this because you've been instructed to, manipulated to. You don't have a solitary point or argument of your own, because the reality is you don't know anything. You're a parrot, that's the extent of your mental capabilities on the subject.

 

Take a look at this picture, and tell me what is the most dangerous firearm laid out here. I'm curiously awaiting your answer.

 

[Mr. Impossible 587]

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop said:

Basically every gun is easy to shoot and easy to modify, what kind of argument is that supposed to be? What does modified even mean to you? Sounds like buzzwords for things you have no pactual understanding of. Trying to make it sound more scary lol?

 

They are fairly accurate at range and lightweight so you can tack on attachments without sacrificing accuracy. They are fairly priced so you can invest money in attachments as well. They are popular for a reason, partly because they are used in so many mass shootings. 

 

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop said:

I have one of the most "modified" lever action rifles you'll ever see that shoots rounds which are far more destructive than a tiny ass 5.56. You do realize that an AR-15's projectile is just a .22 right? The same size round that's used to take out squirrels and other small land varmints.

 

Destructive is the last word I would use to describe an AR-15. 5.56 is great for penetration depending on the round but the kinetic energy transferred to a target is low, it lacks mass. People just jump on them because they are cheap and plentiful, not because of what they are.

 

None of this matters. 

 

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop said:

You can get an AR-15 for under $400, so value per dollar is high. It's also not a particularly remarkable firearm, and they are prone to failures. Stove piping, double feeds, failure to feed etc. They're really quite problematic until heavily broken in.

 

They do not scare the police more than any other gun, the failures of the Uvalde police department is a stain on them, and them alone. Cowards exibit cowardice, that's the end of that point. Thousands of other departments would have moved in immediately per their duty.

 

Didn't this happen in Parkland as well? Most schools don't have swat teams on hand. I haven't seen one of these guns jam in a mass shooting so far. 

 

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop said:

If you want to talk exclusively what I consider to be actual mass shootings, not a bunch of ghetto trash shootings then trust me I'm game. Those two statistics should be clearly separated and so infrequently are. In 42 years there's only been 66 incidents involving rifles, and that doesn't even break down the type of rifle or platform. Handguns account for nearly double that so the argument against rifles evaporates into the ether.

 

No it doesn't. The point is how many casualties were caused during the shootings. So here is where you say something obtuse and pretend someone can John Wick their way through a mall with a revolver and do as much damage and range shooting as they would with a rifle. 

 

 

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop said:

No talk of banning handguns, none, not a fucking word. And yet here we still are demonizing a rifle platform. You only do this because you've been instructed to, manipulated to. You don't have a solitary point or argument of your own, because the reality is you don't know anything. You're a parrot, that's the extent of your mental capabilities on the subject.

 

You're such a petulant child you're now complaining that Dems don't want to ban even more guns. You're so fucking unreasonable. 

 

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop said:

Take a look at this picture, and tell me what is the most dangerous firearm laid out here. I'm curiously awaiting your answer.

 

 

 

What does this have to do with anything? The people buying the guns for mass shootings know what they want and they are picking one gun more than others. Beating your meat over gun lingo is irrelevant.