When anti-gunners lie about the AR-15 rifle, or just get it completely wrong..

[DonGlock26]

No, I just don't pretend it's unique to any one ideology.

We live in a country built on Genocide and Slavery; we really can't complain because Mao didn't understand agriculture.

US history is nothing compared to the murders committed by communist gov'ts in the 20th century.

 

[Auld Phart]

You are proving my point. Books scare you.

Speaking of guys terrified of books


We've been over this. A mass shooting is any incident where more than one person is killed or injured.

YOu want to define is as five or more people being killed, and thankfully, those are rare, but not as rare as you claim.

. A mass shooting is any incident where more than one person is killed or injured.

Why do they keep changing the number?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yet oddly, the Japanese and Europeans ban guns, and they don't have anywhere near our crime problems.

Imagine that.



Um, guy, everyone had a short lifespan back then.

Law enforcement wasn't as widespread as you think. Most places didn't even have police forces. If you didn't catch the guy red handed in the act, you never were going to.

Nope, the reason they didn't have a lot of crime back then was that guns were rare, and the mentally ill were locked up.

The locals were the law enforcement. Boston formed the first police department in North America in 1838. Prior to that, neighbors enforced the law and they had a very short way of dealing with criminals. Suspected criminals were captured, given a quick trial then hung when found guilty. In small towns everyone knows who the criminals are and in those days society's rights far outweighed those of criminals. Defense lawyers were few and far between, so the niceties of the law were ignored in favor of simple guilt or innocence.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yet oddly, the Japanese and Europeans ban guns, and they don't have anywhere near our crime problems.

Imagine that.



Um, guy, everyone had a short lifespan back then.

Law enforcement wasn't as widespread as you think. Most places didn't even have police forces. If you didn't catch the guy red handed in the act, you never were going to.

Nope, the reason they didn't have a lot of crime back then was that guns were rare, and the mentally ill were locked up.

Both Japan and Europe treat criminals far more harshly than the USA does. Japanese police can do things on a daily basis that would turn your hair white.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

None of those weapons had the destructive capability of the AR-15.

I'm less worried about them being used to kill deer and more worried when they get used on preschoolers.

There is a simple fix for that. Put fully vetted armed combat veterans in schools. I'm sure you disagree with this option because for you loons it's not about school safety. It's about disarming law abiding citizens.

 

[AZrailwhale]

There is a simple fix for that. Put fully vetted armed combat veterans in schools. I'm sure you disagree with this option because for you loons it's not about school safety. It's about disarming law abiding citizens.

Simple security starting with airlock style mantraps on all entrances would go a long way. Lock a shooter in a lexan booth and he is harmless.

 

[2aguy]

Yet oddly, the Japanese and Europeans ban guns, and they don't have anywhere near our crime problems.

Imagine that.



Um, guy, everyone had a short lifespan back then.

Law enforcement wasn't as widespread as you think. Most places didn't even have police forces. If you didn't catch the guy red handed in the act, you never were going to.

Nope, the reason they didn't have a lot of crime back then was that guns were rare, and the mentally ill were locked up.

Democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians make our crime rate high, not guns...they allow violent, repeat offenders out of jail and prison, over and over and over again, even violent gun offenders....they need criminals using guns to commit crime and murder people so they can push gun control.

Europe is going to surpass the U.S. in crime....they imported violent, 3rd world men, who now use illegal guns more and more, and even hand grenades to enforce their drug territories and to rape English girls.

Sweden, once a crime free nation, has become the rape capitol of Europe, and their drug gangs are using guns and hand grenades daily...and it is getting worse....

Japan keeps crime low by actually putting criminals in prison for long sentences......

In Japan, stealing a wallet is a 10 year sentence.....and you do that sentence...

 

[2aguy]

No, I just don't pretend it's unique to any one ideology.

We live in a country built on Genocide and Slavery; we really can't complain because Mao didn't understand agriculture.

There was no genocide, and the democrat party, the party you currently vote for and support, was the party of slavery....even started a war that killed over 500,000 Americans to keep blacks as their slaves.

 

[2aguy]

Yet oddly, the Japanese and Europeans ban guns, and they don't have anywhere near our crime problems.

Imagine that.



Um, guy, everyone had a short lifespan back then.

Law enforcement wasn't as widespread as you think. Most places didn't even have police forces. If you didn't catch the guy red handed in the act, you never were going to.

Nope, the reason they didn't have a lot of crime back then was that guns were rare, and the mentally ill were locked up.

You really are a moron.....crime was high back then because people were far more violent, and access to guns had nothing to do with it.

 

[2aguy]

There is a simple fix for that. Put fully vetted armed combat veterans in schools. I'm sure you disagree with this option because for you loons it's not about school safety. It's about disarming law abiding citizens.

Joe and the party of actual slave rapists, the democrat party, want dead children in schools. The best tool they have to push gun control is dead kids in schools....that is why they fight tooth and nail to keep security and armed teachers out of those schools.

 

[2aguy]

You are proving my point. Books scare you.

Speaking of guys terrified of books


We've been over this. A mass shooting is any incident where more than one person is killed or injured.

YOu want to define is as five or more people being killed, and thankfully, those are rare, but not as rare as you claim.

No, a mass public shooting is not the same as a gang banger unloading at a party, on a block, or over social media posts about his girlfriend.

The actual definition of mass public shootings....

From Mother Jones, the left wing, anti-gun, news organization:

+++++++++++++++++
Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases.
-------

• Here is a description of the criteria we use:
  
  
  • The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three; our database reflects this change beginning from Jan. 2013, as detailed above.)
  • The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
  • The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).
  • Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.
  • We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
  ----------------------

Our research focused on indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. (Or in which the perpetrators have not been identified.) Other news outlets and researchers have since published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings are useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at a distinct phenomenon—from the firearms used and mental health factors to the growing copycat problem. Tracking mass shootings is complex; we believe ours is the most useful approach for studying this specific phenomenon.
++++++++++++++

 

[JoeB131]

US history is nothing compared to the murders committed by communist gov'ts in the 20th century.

Genocide is one of those things that countries see in others but never themselves.

We wiped out whole ethnicities.

Now, if you want to have a reasoned argument about why communism doesn't work, that's fine. I could cite a dozen off the top of my head.

But repeating garbage about Stalin killing 50 million (even though the population of the USSR increased by 40% during his reign despite WWII) or Mao killing 65 million (only if you take the high-end estimates of the Great Famine and attribute it totally to the government, which is intellectually dishonest)

Here's the thing about the Great Famine. China has had 180 recorded famines since the Han Dynasty (c. 206 BCE- 220 CE)

The Great Famine of 1959-61 (which my wife lived through) killed anywhere from 15-45 million people. that's pretty bad.

The Sichuan Famine of 1937 killed 5 million
The famine of 1928 killed 10 million.
The Famine of 1906 killed 26 million and probably brought an end to the Qing Dynasty.
30 million people died during the Taiping Rebellion.

Well, you get the idea.

Now, there were a bunch of reasons the Great Famine was worse than it should have been.

First, the Chinese adopted the agricultural policies of Trophim Lyssenko, who also contributed to the Ukrainian famine of the 1920s with his misunderstandings of how to plant crops. (He posited that if you put more plants closer together, you get higher yields. It doesn't work that way, as they are competing for the same water and nutrients.)

The Chinese also encouraged killing sparrows as part of the "Four Pests" campaigns (that also targeted flies, mosquitoes, and rats). Without the sparrows, the insect population ballooned.

The final thing they did wrong was to emphasize grain exports to pay off debts to the USSR. Lower-level officials hoarded grain for export instead of distributing it to the people, and then gave false reports to Beijing about how well things were going. This worked fine in the 1950's, until it didn't.

yet despite these foulups, most Chinese today still revere Mao Zedong the way we revere George Washington. Why? Because he took a shattered China, and turned her into a superpower.

 

[2aguy]

Genocide is one of those things that countries see in others but never themselves.

We wiped out whole ethnicities.

Now, if you want to have a reasoned argument about why communism doesn't work, that's fine. I could cite a dozen off the top of my head.

But repeating garbage about Stalin killing 50 million (even though the population of the USSR increased by 40% during his reign despite WWII) or Mao killing 65 million (only if you take the high-end estimates of the Great Famine and attribute it totally to the government, which is intellectually dishonest)

Here's the thing about the Great Famine. China has had 180 recorded famines since the Han Dynasty (c. 206 BCE- 220 CE)

The Great Famine of 1959-61 (which my wife lived through) killed anywhere from 15-45 million people. that's pretty bad.

The Sichuan Famine of 1937 killed 5 million
The famine of 1928 killed 10 million.
The Famine of 1906 killed 26 million and probably brought an end to the Qing Dynasty.
30 million people died during the Taiping Rebellion.

Well, you get the idea.

Now, there were a bunch of reasons the Great Famine was worse than it should have been.

First, the Chinese adopted the agricultural policies of Trophim Lyssenko, who also contributed to the Ukrainian famine of the 1920s with his misunderstandings of how to plant crops. (He posited that if you put more plants closer together, you get higher yields. It doesn't work that way, as they are competing for the same water and nutrients.)

The Chinese also encouraged killing sparrows as part of the "Four Pests" campaigns (that also targeted flies, mosquitoes, and rats). Without the sparrows, the insect population ballooned.

The final thing they did wrong was to emphasize grain exports to pay off debts to the USSR. Lower-level officials hoarded grain for export instead of distributing it to the people, and then gave false reports to Beijing about how well things were going. This worked fine in the 1950's, until it didn't.

yet despite these foulups, most Chinese today still revere Mao Zedong the way we revere George Washington. Why? Because he took a shattered China, and turned her into a superpower.

90% of indians died from disease before the United States was created. Disease is not genocide you lying asshat.

 

[JoeB131]

90% of indians died from disease before the United States was created. Disease is not genocide you lying asshat.

No, but herding them into concentration camps and sending the military out to kill them is.

Hey, check this out.

The Bison was hunted to near-extinction for the express purpose of depriving Plains Nations of their primary food source.

The intent being to starve them out.

 

[2aguy]

No, but herding them into concentration camps and sending the military out to kill them is.

Hey, check this out.

View attachment 1238590

The Bison was hunted to near-extinction for the express purpose of depriving Plains Nations of their primary food source.

The intent being to starve them out.

Another democrat party crime.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Another democrat party crime.

When your enemy refuses to stand and fight while murdering, torturing and raping your civilians, you need to find some way to force them to fight. The Plains Indians were not good people, my great grandmother was a full blooded Comanche and told me stories about her life.
But you are wrong about the motive of killing off the Buffalo, like Beaver Hats, Buffalo Robes were highly fashionable wear in the East and in Europe and brought high prices. Notice you never see piles of rotting hides.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Genocide is one of those things that countries see in others but never themselves.

We wiped out whole ethnicities.

Now, if you want to have a reasoned argument about why communism doesn't work, that's fine. I could cite a dozen off the top of my head.

But repeating garbage about Stalin killing 50 million (even though the population of the USSR increased by 40% during his reign despite WWII) or Mao killing 65 million (only if you take the high-end estimates of the Great Famine and attribute it totally to the government, which is intellectually dishonest)

Stalin killed 3-5 million in a famine he engineered. His incompetence and purges gutted Red Army leadership, resulting in total incompetence when the Germans invaded.

Here's the thing about the Great Famine. China has had 180 recorded famines since the Han Dynasty (c. 206 BCE- 220 CE)

The Great Famine of 1959-61 (which my wife lived through) killed anywhere from 15-45 million people. that's pretty bad.

The Sichuan Famine of 1937 killed 5 million
The famine of 1928 killed 10 million.
The Famine of 1906 killed 26 million and probably brought an end to the Qing Dynasty.
30 million people died during the Taiping Rebellion.

Well, you get the idea.

Now, there were a bunch of reasons the Great Famine was worse than it should have been.

First, the Chinese adopted the agricultural policies of Trophim Lyssenko, who also contributed to the Ukrainian famine of the 1920s with his misunderstandings of how to plant crops. (He posited that if you put more plants closer together, you get higher yields. It doesn't work that way, as they are competing for the same water and nutrients.)

The Chinese also encouraged killing sparrows as part of the "Four Pests" campaigns (that also targeted flies, mosquitoes, and rats). Without the sparrows, the insect population ballooned.

The final thing they did wrong was to emphasize grain exports to pay off debts to the USSR. Lower-level officials hoarded grain for export instead of distributing it to the people, and then gave false reports to Beijing about how well things were going. This worked fine in the 1950's, until it didn't.

yet despite these foulups, most Chinese today still revere Mao Zedong the way we revere George Washington. Why? Because he took a shattered China, and turned her into a superpower.

Yes-also because generations of propaganda have essentially deified him, and because NOT worshipping Mao can be hazardous to your health.

 

[JoeB131]

Another democrat party crime.

Actually, most of the worst genocides happened in that period of Republican Dominance between 1860 and 1912, but don't let that stop you.

Just keep telling yourself that when you are forced to admit America has done some bad shit, you can blame the Democrats, somehow.

Even though the racist Democrats of old are the Racist Republicans of today.

When your enemy refuses to stand and fight while murdering, torturing and raping your civilians, you need to find some way to force them to fight. The Plains Indians were not good people, my great grandmother was a full blooded Comanche and told me stories about her life.
But you are wrong about the motive of killing off the Buffalo, like Beaver Hats, Buffalo Robes were highly fashionable wear in the East and in Europe and brought high prices. Notice you never see piles of rotting hides.

Wow, I'm seeing a pattern. Anyone who fights for his land against foreign invaders is a "savage" (Native Americans, Palestinians), but your hatred of immigrants and letting the ICEstapo round them up is a-okay. Even if all they want to do are the menial jobs you don't want.

But for the Buffalo, no exterminating them was a government policy meant to crush the Plains Indians.

American bison hunting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US Army sanctioned and actively endorsed the wholesale slaughter of bison herds.<a href="American bison hunting - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>78<span>]</span></a> The federal government promoted bison hunting for various reasons, primarily to pressure the native people onto the Indian reservations during times of conflict by removing their main food source. Without the bison, native people of the plains were often forced to leave the land or starve to death. One of the biggest advocates of this strategy was General William Tecumseh Sherman. On June 26, 1869, the Army Navy Journal reported: "General Sherman remarked, in conversation the other day, that the quickest way to compel the Indians to settle down to civilized life was to send ten regiments of soldiers to the plains, with orders to shoot buffaloes until they became too scarce to support the redskins."

Similarly, Lieutenant General John M. Schofield would write in his memoirs: "With my cavalry and carbined artillery encamped in front, I wanted no other occupation in life than to ward off the savage and kill off his food until there should no longer be an Indian frontier in our beautiful country."In 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant vetoed the act of Congress HR 921, which would have implemented protections against non-indigenous overhunting of buffalo.< Before this, Secretary of the Interior, Columbus Delano, had stated the following regarding complaints about non-indigenous hunting buffalo on native reservations:

"While I would not seriously regret the total disappearance of the buffalo from our western prairies, in its effect on the Indians, regarding it rather as a means of hastening their sense of dependence upon the products of the soil and their own labors, yet these encroachments by the non-indigenous upon the reservations set apart for the exclusive occupancy of the Indian is one prolific source of trouble in the management of the reservation Indians, and measures should be adopted to prevent such trespasses in the future, or very serious collisions may be the result."

Demonstrating clearly that he saw non-indigenous poaching of bison as a problem only because it may lead to retaliation from the Indians, and on the contrary, that he saw the extermination of the buffalo as potentially beneficial in the forced assimilation of Indians.

According to Professor David Smits: "Frustrated bluecoats, unable to deliver a punishing blow to the so-called 'Hostiles', unless they were immobilized in their winter camps, could, however, strike at a more accessible target, namely, the buffalo. That tactic also made curious sense, for in soldiers' minds the buffalo and the Plains Indian were virtually inseparable."<a

 

[martybegan]

Yet oddly, the Japanese and Europeans ban guns, and they don't have anywhere near our crime problems.

Imagine that.



Um, guy, everyone had a short lifespan back then.

Law enforcement wasn't as widespread as you think. Most places didn't even have police forces. If you didn't catch the guy red handed in the act, you never were going to.

Nope, the reason they didn't have a lot of crime back then was that guns were rare, and the mentally ill were locked up.

Because of cultural differences, and the Europeans are importing people that don't live to that level of culture.

 

[JoeB131]

Because of cultural differences, and the Europeans are importing people that don't live to that level of culture.

I love the concern trolling.