RE: Shooting in California

RE: Shooting in California (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/7/2015 8:16:09 PM)
ORIGINAL: ifmaz ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you feel joe/jane citizen should be allowed to own a 155mm pack howitzer? Just as well: I imagine the recoil is a bit more with the 155mm. You could always drop back to a 105...zero recoil...still a little heavy to fire from the hip[;)]

nighthawk3569 -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 3:57:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you feel joe/jane citizen should be allowed to own a 155mm pack howitzer? An f18 with missles and cannon? A nuclear weapon? Try to keep up...there's no such thing as a 155mm 'pack' howitzer. However, Joe/Jane should be allowed to own one, if they wish to. On most city building lots, they's need to tear down their house to have room to park it, so they'd probably forgo the pleasure, in favor of a roof over their heads. I, too, will just stick with my .45. 'hawk

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 7:44:27 AM)
]ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you feel joe/jane citizen should be allowed to own a 155mm pack howitzer? An f18 with missles and cannon? A nuclear weapon? Try to keep up...there's no such thing as a 155mm 'pack' howitzer. Yes there is. It is as a pos and just does not work very well. http://www.g2mil.com/155lw.htm The Ultra-Lightweight Field Howitzer (UFH), designated XM777 (LW155) in the USA, was selected in 1997 by a joint US Army/Marine Corps initiative to replace the existing inventory of M198 155mm towed howitzers. The first of six test systems was delivered in June 2000. The US Marine Corps is expected to procure 413 systems with production scheduled to begin in 2002, and the US Army production of 273 systems will begin in 2003. The British Army is expected to order 65 systems and the Italian Army 70 systems. However, Joe/Jane should be allowed to own one, if they wish to. Why?

tj444 -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 8:20:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LMAO hypocrite Oh, I don't know that I'd call tj a hypocrite...misguided maybe. Mistaken in the assumption that this was workplace viilence? Most assuredly. me misguided??? if people on a terrorist watch list are prohibited from flying they should also be prohibited from owning and using firearms.. its just common sense.. You dont seem to understand what I was saying.. I think something happened at the party to tick off the male and triggered him to attack his co-workers that day.. I think its very conceivable that they had a different target & date originally planned (due to the bombs they made), some big event similar to what the marathon bombers did.. I think they were looking to kill/harm more people than they did..

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 9:37:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LMAO hypocrite Oh, I don't know that I'd call tj a hypocrite...misguided maybe. Mistaken in the assumption that this was workplace viilence? Most assuredly. me misguided??? if people on a terrorist watch list are prohibited from flying they should also be prohibited from owning and using firearms.. its just common sense.. You dont seem to understand what I was saying.. I think something happened at the party to tick off the male and triggered him to attack his co-workers that day.. I think its very conceivable that they had a different target & date originally planned (due to the bombs they made), some big event similar to what the marathon bombers did.. I think they were looking to kill/harm more people than they did.. And if that were true, tj...then why the message of support to ISIS on Facebook? I'm not saying that they didn't have another target in mind later but it seems strange that two radicalized Muslims would suddenly give up their lives for a minor provocation.

tj444 -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 10:08:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LMAO hypocrite Oh, I don't know that I'd call tj a hypocrite...misguided maybe. Mistaken in the assumption that this was workplace viilence? Most assuredly. me misguided??? if people on a terrorist watch list are prohibited from flying they should also be prohibited from owning and using firearms.. its just common sense.. You dont seem to understand what I was saying.. I think something happened at the party to tick off the male and triggered him to attack his co-workers that day.. I think its very conceivable that they had a different target & date originally planned (due to the bombs they made), some big event similar to what the marathon bombers did.. I think they were looking to kill/harm more people than they did.. And if that were true, tj...then why the message of support to ISIS on Facebook? I'm not saying that they didn't have another target in mind later but it seems strange that two radicalized Muslims would suddenly give up their lives for a minor provocation. it seems (from what i have read) that the male had a temper (even tho he tried not to show it) and so imo they changed whatever plans they might have had to attack this party instead.. You might consider the provocation minor, I might consider the provocation minor.. He might not have considered the provocation minor at all and so the attack was his way of blowing up and showing them.. They are terrorists, there is no doubt about that, but I dont think attacking this party was the original plan.. What I dont understand is why they bothered having a baby.. I see these two as being religious nutz like that nutbar that attacked PP.. anyone that is deeply religious can be "radicalized".. Imo it takes a certain kinda crazy to be religious in the first place, and believe all that crap... I dont understand people that "find God".. when i find out someone is religious, I stay away from them..

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 10:51:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LMAO hypocrite Oh, I don't know that I'd call tj a hypocrite...misguided maybe. Mistaken in the assumption that this was workplace viilence? Most assuredly. me misguided??? if people on a terrorist watch list are prohibited from flying they should also be prohibited from owning and using firearms.. its just common sense.. You dont seem to understand what I was saying.. I think something happened at the party to tick off the male and triggered him to attack his co-workers that day.. I think its very conceivable that they had a different target & date originally planned (due to the bombs they made), some big event similar to what the marathon bombers did.. I think they were looking to kill/harm more people than they did.. And if that were true, tj...then why the message of support to ISIS on Facebook? I'm not saying that they didn't have another target in mind later but it seems strange that two radicalized Muslims would suddenly give up their lives for a minor provocation. it seems (from what i have read) that the male had a temper (even tho he tried not to show it) and so imo they changed whatever plans they might have had to attack this party instead.. You might consider the provocation minor, I might consider the provocation minor.. He might not have considered the provocation minor at all and so the attack was his way of blowing up and showing them.. They are terrorists, there is no doubt about that, but I dont think attacking this party was the original plan.. What I dont understand is why they bothered having a baby.. I see these two as being religious nutz like that nutbar that attacked PP.. anyone that is deeply religious can be "radicalized".. Imo it takes a certain kinda crazy to be religious in the first place, and believe all that crap... I dont understand people that "find God".. when i find out someone is religious, I stay away from them.. He did it in a fit of temper, but they took time to set booby traps for first responders?

zombiegurlsos -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 11:50:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LMAO hypocrite Oh, I don't know that I'd call tj a hypocrite...misguided maybe. Mistaken in the assumption that this was workplace viilence? Most assuredly. me misguided??? if people on a terrorist watch list are prohibited from flying they should also be prohibited from owning and using firearms.. its just common sense.. You dont seem to understand what I was saying.. I think something happened at the party to tick off the male and triggered him to attack his co-workers that day.. I think its very conceivable that they had a different target & date originally planned (due to the bombs they made), some big event similar to what the marathon bombers did.. I think they were looking to kill/harm more people than they did.. And if that were true, tj...then why the message of support to ISIS on Facebook? I'm not saying that they didn't have another target in mind later but it seems strange that two radicalized Muslims would suddenly give up their lives for a minor provocation. it seems (from what i have read) that the male had a temper (even tho he tried not to show it) and so imo they changed whatever plans they might have had to attack this party instead.. You might consider the provocation minor, I might consider the provocation minor.. He might not have considered the provocation minor at all and so the attack was his way of blowing up and showing them.. They are terrorists, there is no doubt about that, but I dont think attacking this party was the original plan.. What I dont understand is why they bothered having a baby.. I see these two as being religious nutz like that nutbar that attacked PP.. anyone that is deeply religious can be "radicalized".. Imo it takes a certain kinda crazy to be religious in the first place, and believe all that crap... I dont understand people that "find God".. when i find out someone is religious, I stay away from them.. They had a baby because the pro lifers made condoms hard to buy....

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 12:06:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you feel joe/jane citizen should be allowed to own a 155mm pack howitzer? An f18 with missles and cannon? A nuclear weapon? Try to keep up...there's no such thing as a 155mm 'pack' howitzer. However, Joe/Jane should be allowed to own one, if they wish to. On most city building lots, they's need to tear down their house to have room to park it, so they'd probably forgo the pleasure, in favor of a roof over their heads. I, too, will just stick with my .45. 'hawk I think he is refering to a WWII undersized howitzer that could be broken down and carried by mules in terrain to rough for vehicals.

Rule -> RE: Shooting in California (12/8/2015 5:06:15 PM)
FR I read somewhere that it was a false flag operation. That appears credible to me.

mnottertail -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 2:19:09 PM)
I am sure it was because of lack of penises.

lovmuffin -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 2:28:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am sure it was because of lack of penises. On him or her ?

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 2:29:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is their job... they are trained... you are not... you are a danger to others. You may get your butt shot running around a crime scene with a popgun playing wild west. Butch Actually I am trained and I am not a danger to others.

Tkman117 -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 2:35:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is their job... they are trained... you are not... you are a danger to others. You may get your butt shot running around a crime scene with a popgun playing wild west. Butch Actually I am trained and I am not a danger to others. Until the time comes that you aren't. Honestly the majority of people who end up shooting someone also claim to be "responsible gun owners" before said shooting occurs. [8\|]

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 3:27:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is their job... they are trained... you are not... you are a danger to others. You may get your butt shot running around a crime scene with a popgun playing wild west. Butch Actually I am trained and I am not a danger to others. Until the time comes that you aren't. Honestly the majority of people who end up shooting someone also claim to be "responsible gun owners" before said shooting occurs. [8\|] Really? In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992) http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html So, the rate of homicide by gun outranks both suicide by gun and accidental death by gun. By a very wide margin in the latter case. So, in the case of homicide, do you really think the majority of the people who killed someone else deliberately were responsible gun owners right up to the point they murdered someone? Or perhaps, it's the suicides? No...wait: these people killed themselves so that can't be it. Perhaps you mean the accidental gun deaths? No, that can't be it because the majority of those deaths were caused by children who...by law...can't own a gun. So...would you mind specifying what group you're referring to when you speak all those responsible gun owners?

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 4:26:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is their job... they are trained... you are not... you are a danger to others. You may get your butt shot running around a crime scene with a popgun playing wild west. Butch Actually I am trained and I am not a danger to others. Until the time comes that you aren't. Honestly the majority of people who end up shooting someone also claim to be "responsible gun owners" before said shooting occurs. [8\|] Again, Jack the Ripper was a law abiding citizen....until he wasn't. I am sure this is a devestating comment when among people who agree with you. What it actually is is a mindless political slogan.

PeonForHer -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 5:40:01 PM)
FR I must admit, given the scenarios of a lot of the mass shootings I hear of, I'm a bit puzzled by how the dynamics will work given more than one 'good guy with a gun'. It may be a simple question, but bear in mind that I have no experience of such things in real life: Say one or more bad guys begin to open fire. You, the good guy with the gun, don't see the event right from the start - you're just a couple of seconds too late. But the gunfire alerts you that something bad has happened. You go towards the sound, gun drawn. Once there, you see one or more people with guns aiming at one or more people with guns. How do you know who are the bad guys? Wouldn't it at least sometimes be quite confusing?

ifmaz -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 6:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR I must admit, given the scenarios of a lot of the mass shootings I hear of, I'm a bit puzzled by how the dynamics will work given more than one 'good guy with a gun'. It may be a simple question, but bear in mind that I have no experience of such things in real life: Say one or more bad guys begin to open fire. You, the good guy with the gun, don't see the event right from the start - you're just a couple of seconds too late. But the gunfire alerts you that something bad has happened. You go towards the sound, gun drawn. Once there, you see one or more people with guns aiming at one or more people with guns. How do you know who are the bad guys? Wouldn't it at least sometimes be quite confusing? Replace "good guy with a gun" with "local police officer", how does the situation differ?

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 6:15:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR I must admit, given the scenarios of a lot of the mass shootings I hear of, I'm a bit puzzled by how the dynamics will work given more than one 'good guy with a gun'. It may be a simple question, but bear in mind that I have no experience of such things in real life: Say one or more bad guys begin to open fire. You, the good guy with the gun, don't see the event right from the start - you're just a couple of seconds too late. But the gunfire alerts you that something bad has happened. You go towards the sound, gun drawn. Once there, you see one or more people with guns aiming at one or more people with guns. How do you know who are the bad guys? Wouldn't it at least sometimes be quite confusing? Don't know much about tactics do you? First if you are outside the confrontation your responsibility is 911. Second the guys shooting at everyone will be the bad guys. Thrid you remain hidden till you can tell who that is. Fouth, while there have been numerous cases of the good guy with a gun stopping what would have otherwise been a mass killing there has never, I repeat never been an incident like what you discribe. The odds of mutiple ccw holders being present are very low no matter what you have been lead to believe. Also the guys in tactical gear would be a real good bet. I only know of one case where someone outside the shooting area tried to go in and he, properly, volunteered to help the unarmed security guard who told him to leave. In all other cases the ccw holder was in the firefight whether he wanted to be or not. His choice was fight back and have a chance or just curl up and be a victim.

PeonForHer -> RE: Shooting in California (12/9/2015 6:17:31 PM)
quote: Don't know much about tactics do you? Actually, I know nothing about such tactics, as previously mentioned. [:)]

Page: << < prev 13 14 15 [16] 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625