Lurker > _RETS_

_BlueMonk posted...

Republicans : " We don't need stricter gun laws! Criminals will get them illegally anyway!"
Also republicans : "WE NEED STRICT BORDER LAWS SO NO MORE PEOPLE CROSS ILLEGALLY!"

Do you need someone to explain to you why this isn't an apt comparison or do you think you'll get there on your own?

LordMarshal posted...

spanky1 posted...

I can't blame them for their decision at the time they shot. It was do or die at that point.

He had a knife. The cops were 100% safe.

Hosing down both of them was the fairest decision. Nothing personal.

But she was clearly not safe.

Dagon_0 posted...

They should throw his murdering ass in prison, along with ppl who think he did the right thing.

Our police are horribly trained fuck ups.

So what was the "right" thing to do?

eston posted...

VectorChaos posted...

"Hey we're gonna call the hostage negot--aaaaand she's dead."

Alright what's your next "better option". Hit me.

Maybe back off a little in order to buy her some time, because having your throat cut doesn't kill you immediately

Did you watch the video?

It was a large knife and he was sawing her throat. There was no "buying her time". They had to act. She was dead if they backed off, she was dead if they engaged without their guns most likely. The best case was to shoot and not hit her but that didn't happen.

They should have already shot this guy and who knows why the woman wasn't already taking off unless someone was telling her to stay put.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Once he took a hostage and put a weapon to her throat, why didn't the cops hold back and call in a professional to talk the man down? Idk man, you can sit there and make excuses for the cops shooting the hostage in the face, but there were better options. It doesn't make any sense to say that the man was probably going to kill her so the cops had no choice but to guarantee that she actually did die.

I think he started cutting her throat as soon as he grabbed her. A decision, one way or another, had to be made immediately and it seems the fastest way to ensure he stopped was shooting him. She, unfortunately, was hit in the crossfire. But either they shoot and kill him without killing her, they charge him and she dies from the knife in the time it takes them to get him off her, or they shoot them both and she lives, or they shoot them both and she dies.

3 of those 4 scenarios are pretty grim for her.

This is a tough one. He grabbed her and immediately started to cut her throat. The time it would take to secure their weapons and rush him, she would likely already be dead or in an unsavable condition. Shooting was the fastest way to stop him, it's just unfortunate she was also killed. I think she was probably dead either way. The only way to save her was shooting the guy, that part just didn't go as planned.

Hicks233 posted...

Orthopox12 posted...

You didnt mention anything about their taxes.

What do you think funds those social programs?

I'm guessing you're from the US? Why is it so difficult to grasp: that if you want nice things for a society, you're going to have to pay for them? Why is the US such a bunch of cheapskates?

Cheapskates that fund the wellbeing of the rest of the world?

EliteLevel posted...

_RETS_ posted...

EliteLevel posted...

_RETS_ posted...

are the only countries you dudes think are better than the USA countries that are whiter than the USA? bunch of racists

Name some alternatives then.

There are no alternatives. The only countries "better" than the US are whiter ones.

_RETS_ posted...

are the only countries you dudes think are better than the USA countries that are whiter than the USA? bunch of racists

Hmmmm.

My first post was sarcastic.

BTW, other countries can be "better" at the metrics in TC because the USA foots the bill for their defense, medical advancement, etc. We subsidize security and medical advancement for the rest of the world and spend far, far more for the benefit of other countries than anyone else. So they have the luxury of pouring money into more social programs.

EliteLevel posted...

_RETS_ posted...

are the only countries you dudes think are better than the USA countries that are whiter than the USA? bunch of racists

Name some alternatives then.

There are no alternatives. The only countries "better" than the US are whiter ones.

are the only countries you dudes think are better than the USA countries that are whiter than the USA? bunch of racists

nicklebro posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Compassionate, understanding Left blames homeless people

Occupy ICE also forced a charity food cart that helped homeless people to shut down because they served a police officer

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/25/occupy-ice-shuts-down-portland-non-profit-food-car/

I think it's time to accept that the left doesn't actually care about poor people. Or rather they care about poor people way less than they care about satisfying their self-serving crusading.

Lol you think the operator of that food cart is a conservative? Lmao get real bro. Liberals are the only ones that care about anyone other than themselves. Conservatism is literally built around self serving ideals. Its why conservatives have opposed every single instance of social change the country has ever seen. Every single disadvantaged or oppressed group was championed by liberals, and conservatives were there to try and stop progress every single time. But yeah all of a sudden that's over because they yelled across the street to the owners lol.

Oh and I almost forgot why everyone is there in the first place, its because Republicans think its fine to tear children away from their parents and lock them up in make shift cages for days, face a judge without even an adult present, let alone legal counsel, all because you don't give a shit about anyone but yourselves. Disgusting.

They probably are now.

Cops did nothing wrong. In fact, they took Rhames next door to introduce him to the neighbors who had called the police on him.

Go through TrueCar or CarGurus.

See what the dealer will take for a trade in on your car, which will apply to the cost of the new one. Get financed through a credit union. I am financing a 2004 Titan right now that only had 80k on it and is in near-perfect condition. I have a 36 month finance, but I'll probably have it completely paid off in the next couple months after buying it a few weeks ago. Interest is only 4.45%.

Ask to see the CarFax, any frame damage, if any previous owners were smokers, and take it to get independently inspected by a mechanic to make sure you aren't getting fucked by any obvious problems the dealer isn't telling you about.

Also, negotiate. My titan was supposed to be 9800 plus TTL and I got it down to 9500 total and got them to take my beat up trade for 2500.

kenio8187 posted...

I really hate the term pink "tax" because even if it's true, the word "tax" is a terrible word for it. It's not a tax if you're not forced into it. The simple fact that they're allowed to buy "male" versions of products makes it not a tax.

Admittedly, that is me being too hyper specific, but I just feel like using the word "tax" gives it the wrong idea.

Also, I made this 2 min video making fun of a pink tax video.

Nuance Bro did a debunking video on this as well. Is there something tat feminism does to the brain that makes people so easily manipulated by this bullshit?

skermac posted...

_RETS_ posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

At&t stadium now known as the plantation

Complete with the multi-millionaire, voluntarily employed slaves. Just like old times!

No one is forcing them to work for him they are free to seek employment elsewhere

Guess it's hard to pick up on obvious sarcasm in text

Not my own story, but a friend's the made me laugh when he told it.

When we were in high school he was banging one of our teachers (a fact I learned when we were planning up to our 10 year reunion) and at one point during making out she put her hand in his pants and said "aww you don't like me?" despite him actually having a full on stiffy. He was devastated.

I knocked out 5 months worth of upcoming payments on my new truck today, going to fully pay off my insurance policy next week, and maybe do chrome delete on the truck soon after. Trying to be pretty close to debt free or at least have the truck paid off (36 month financing, purchased a few weeks ago) by the end of the year. Feels good bruh

Are black people more likely to be murdered by white people when it comes to interracial homicide or is it the other way around?

If you're just going off the original and it's line of sequels, I font remember anything really being said about his childhood at all

Hereditary.

Probably the best horror movie in the last couple decades

FrisbeeDude posted...

At&t stadium now known as the plantation

Complete with the multi-millionaire, voluntarily employed slaves. Just like old times!

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Viewership was down nearly 10% from the previous year, which is why i said it is something that could "potentially" lose the business money. If that decline continues, which I'm sure kneeling isn't helping, profits will follow.

There profits are still up, and compared to everything else on TV the NFL has went down the less. So factoring in the normal decline. They are still doing super well. Also until this became a thing . THEY DIDN'T SHOW THE ANTHEM FOR NORMAL GAMES. Now people care what other people do while it plays. When they are not standing . Tell me how is that logical.

People getting mad about the players kneeling is illogical, I'm not defending the outrage and don't care what the players do. But if the action loses money as viewership declines then the owners have every right to make a change. That's my only point. Agree or disagree with the kneeling, money is the only thing that matters in business.

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

This doesn't make any sense. Why would any business owner want their employees to do something on company time that will lose them a lot money as the most likely outcome?

The NFL had record profits last year.

Viewership was down nearly 10% from the previous year, which is why i said it is something that could "potentially" lose the business money. If that decline continues, which I'm sure kneeling isn't helping, profits will follow. Especially when you consider themselves earnings are from ad revenue. If viewership continues to decline, ad revenue isn't as valuable and will decline as well because the ad dollars spent have less reach

CADE FOSTER posted...

Considering that we the tax payers pay for almost everything the nfl does fuck yes they should be

This doesn't make any sense. Why would any business owner want their employees to do something on company time that will lose them a lot money as the most likely outcome?

CADE FOSTER posted...

Damn near every Nfl owner is a good ole boy republican that are ok with a traitor president but not kneeling

Should the owner of a business be okay with employees doing something on company time that potentially loses them millions of dollars?

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

What are they protesting and what is their proposed solution?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/opinion/trump-pardon-nfl-players.html

Alice Johnson helped move thousands of pounds of drugs for a brutal cartel. She shouldn't have been pardoned. But good read nonetheless

What are they protesting and what is their proposed solution?

KhanJohnny posted...

Liberals want to take away guns to save mostly minority lives that have low living standards but support abortion to stop the births of mostly minority babies with low living standards.

Not to mention minorities stuck in ghetto shit holes may like to keep their legally purchased fire arms because they live in a high crime hell and should be able to defend themselves.

Kids, divorce, and debt. Don't do those three things.

Bio1590 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Explain why it is the wrong perspective. With those factors accounted for (gang violence and suicide) America's "gun violence problem" accounts for a fraction of a percent of annual deaths. Any wrongful gun deaths are too many, but is it really the issue it is made out be and if you think so, why?

You're saying it right there. You admit there is a problem but insist on downplaying it. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred gun deaths a year or a hundred thousand. Why wouldn't we want to do what we can to prevent deaths?

I am not downplaying the problem, I am suggesting we don't exaggerate the problem. If you factor out suicides and gang violence, how do we stack up to every other developed country? I would expect it not to be too far off.

If you're gonna toss that out there you should probably look it up, especially since every other countries' firearm-related homicide numbers will change as well.

Based on what I can find you're still looking at about 1 incident per 100,000 people which is still orders of magnitudes higher than other "developed" countries especially when you factor out gang violence from them as well.

Sure, I wasn't suggesting we are on par with other countries with those factors accounted for, just that it would be much closer than we get when the number 30+k gets thrown around.

It is very similar to after Parkland the "X school shootings this year" narrative being complete bullshit. Are school shootings a problem? Yes. Does counting "man in his 30s kills self overnight in the parking lt of a closed school" as a school shooting help that problem rather than distract from it? No.

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

That really doesn't mean anything.

It does though. If you lie about the severity of the problem, people who recognize the lie aren't going to take you seriously when it comes down to solving it. When false narratives are used to push a solution, there is a problem.

Take racism. Actual racism is a problem and should be snuffed out when it happens. Hoax hate crimes and fake receipts that get national attention even though they are bullshit exaggerate the problem and distract/detract from the real issues.

But what is the end game here? Since guns crimes are so small we're only going to try a little bit to save people? Rather than do everything we can? Since size matters so much, let's say 10k people were shot dead in America every day. What steps would you take that are so different from 10k a year?

It depends, since the causes of those gun deaths vary radically. If it is gang related, try to fix gang culture and emphasize the value of a two family household. If they are suicide related, increase efforts for better addressing mental health issues. If it is the every day people getting murdered, assess the see what existing laws should have been better enforced to prevent it and then look at what new legislation might be the most appropriate.

You are saying "cure cancer" when cancer is a lot of different shit for a lot of different reasons.

MorbidFaithless posted...

That really doesn't mean anything.

It does though. If you lie about the severity of the problem, people who recognize the lie aren't going to take you seriously when it comes down to solving it. When false narratives are used to push a solution, there is a problem.

Take racism. Actual racism is a problem and should be snuffed out when it happens. Hoax hate crimes and fake receipts that get national attention even though they are bullshit exaggerate the problem and distract/detract from the real issues.

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Explain why it is the wrong perspective. With those factors accounted for (gang violence and suicide) America's "gun violence problem" accounts for a fraction of a percent of annual deaths. Any wrongful gun deaths are too many, but is it really the issue it is made out be and if you think so, why?

You're saying it right there. You admit there is a problem but insist on downplaying it. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred gun deaths a year or a hundred thousand. Why wouldn't we want to do what we can to prevent deaths?

I am not downplaying the problem, I am suggesting we don't exaggerate the problem. If you factor out suicides and gang violence, how do we stack up to every other developed country? I would expect it not to be too far off.

WHYYYYY does it matter?

I guess it doesn't if you don't mind people being manipulated by media narratives

Manipulated into wanting to save lives?

No, manipulated into believing a problem is far worse than it is. If you want to fix a problem, be honest about the problem. And the "save lives" virtue signalers" like to ignore the hundreds of thousands of defensive fire arm uses annually. Willing to bet far more innocent lives were saved than lost because of armed citizens any given year.

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Explain why it is the wrong perspective. With those factors accounted for (gang violence and suicide) America's "gun violence problem" accounts for a fraction of a percent of annual deaths. Any wrongful gun deaths are too many, but is it really the issue it is made out be and if you think so, why?

You're saying it right there. You admit there is a problem but insist on downplaying it. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred gun deaths a year or a hundred thousand. Why wouldn't we want to do what we can to prevent deaths?

I am not downplaying the problem, I am suggesting we don't exaggerate the problem. If you factor out suicides and gang violence, how do we stack up to every other developed country? I would expect it not to be too far off.

WHYYYYY does it matter?

I guess it doesn't if you don't mind people being manipulated by media narratives

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Explain why it is the wrong perspective. With those factors accounted for (gang violence and suicide) America's "gun violence problem" accounts for a fraction of a percent of annual deaths. Any wrongful gun deaths are too many, but is it really the issue it is made out be and if you think so, why?

You're saying it right there. You admit there is a problem but insist on downplaying it. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred gun deaths a year or a hundred thousand. Why wouldn't we want to do what we can to prevent deaths?

I am not downplaying the problem, I am suggesting we don't exaggerate the problem. If you factor out suicides and gang violence, how do we stack up to every other developed country? I would expect it not to be too far off.

MorbidFaithless posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Minute posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Even low-balling estimates have instances of defensive gun use around 100,000 annually. Now, if we didn't have so many guns in the hands of bad people, DGU wouldn't be as necessary, but we do, so it is.

Taking guns out of the hands of bad people is way way way way way way and about fifty more "way"'s better than giving guns to good people, to prevent violent crime.

"b-b-b-but those criminals still get guns illegally" says some pearl-clutching red snowflake.

Sure, some small fraction has the means, motives and financials necessary to go through the much more arduous task of purchasing a firearm illegally. Is it better that 10% of criminals and 0% of innocent folk have firearms, or that 100% of criminals and whatever percent of Americans own firearms?

My post was in response to your "one home invasion" comment which implies defensive use isn't often enough to justify armed citizens. Regardless, you don't want criminals overpowering your citizens and to leave your citizens defenseless. Your "low number of criminals having guns" won't ever happen in the US because the cat is out of the bag, so the next best thing is ensuring citizens are able to defend themselves if necessary.

The majority of gun deaths are from suicides.

That leaves you with about 12k homicides by guns in the US, a massive percentage of which is gang violence.

When you consider all that, is gun violence REALLY that big of a problem when it comes to every day, non-suicidal citizens?

There are non-gang related firearm murders, mass shootings, and accidental gun deaths, but how many deaths do those account for? A couple thousand annually? That's too many still, obviously, but not nearly the "hair on fire" gun problem it is made out to be.

This is the same wrong perspective climate change deniers have.

Explain why it is the wrong perspective. With those factors accounted for (gang violence and suicide) America's "gun violence problem" accounts for a fraction of a percent of annual deaths. Any wrongful gun deaths are too many, but is it really the issue it is made out be and if you think so, why?

UnfairRepresent posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Uh... No? My suspicion is that lesbians would be even more likely to get the dynamic right than a gay male couple

OOhhhh

I see.

Fair enough

:-*

UnfairRepresent posted...

_RETS_ posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I would think lesbians are better at parenting than gay men because it seems they would be able to get the mother/father dynamic better.

Lesbians make better father dymanics than real fathers?

Erm... ok.

Masculine/feminine would have been a better way to phrase it, but yeah I would assume so. .

Are you Bizzaro?

Uh... No? My suspicion is that lesbians would be even more likely to get the dynamic right than a gay male couple. Not that lesbians can do it and gay men can't. I'm not sure what your issue is

UnfairRepresent posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I would think lesbians are better at parenting than gay men because it seems they would be able to get the mother/father dynamic better.

Lesbians make better father dymanics than real fathers?

Erm... ok.

Masculine/feminine would have been a better way to phrase it, but yeah I would assume so. Of the gay couples I've known throughout the years, lesbians seem to have that dynamic where both dudes in male couples slant more feminine.

theAteam posted...

How are they so ill-prepared for a heat wave? Does it never get hot there usually?

104 is hot but most of the US sees those kinds of temps at least a few times every summer.

To be fair, it hasn't been this hot there since August 1945

I would think lesbians are better at parenting than gay men because it seems they would be able to get the mother/father dynamic better.

As long as gay couples can get that dynamic right, more power to them. Children need two-parent households.

Minute posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Even low-balling estimates have instances of defensive gun use around 100,000 annually. Now, if we didn't have so many guns in the hands of bad people, DGU wouldn't be as necessary, but we do, so it is.

Taking guns out of the hands of bad people is way way way way way way and about fifty more "way"'s better than giving guns to good people, to prevent violent crime.

"b-b-b-but those criminals still get guns illegally" says some pearl-clutching red snowflake.

Sure, some small fraction has the means, motives and financials necessary to go through the much more arduous task of purchasing a firearm illegally. Is it better that 10% of criminals and 0% of innocent folk have firearms, or that 100% of criminals and whatever percent of Americans own firearms?

My post was in response to your "one home invasion" comment which implies defensive use isn't often enough to justify armed citizens. Regardless, you don't want criminals overpowering your citizens and to leave your citizens defenseless. Your "low number of criminals having guns" won't ever happen in the US because the cat is out of the bag, so the next best thing is ensuring citizens are able to defend themselves if necessary.

The majority of gun deaths are from suicides.

That leaves you with about 12k homicides by guns in the US, a massive percentage of which is gang violence.

When you consider all that, is gun violence REALLY that big of a problem when it comes to every day, non-suicidal citizens?

There are non-gang related firearm murders, mass shootings, and accidental gun deaths, but how many deaths do those account for? A couple thousand annually? That's too many still, obviously, but not nearly the "hair on fire" gun problem it is made out to be.

Minute posted...

silentwing26x posted...

Minute posted...

Mayor John Tory has suggested that he would be in favour of stricter regulations, commenting that he does not see any reason for anybody to possess a gun in Toronto.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3509256/4-arrested-1-wanted-in-violent-home-invasion-toronto-police/

oh

We're not stupid, hyperbolic, and "muh feels" up here. One home invasion does not warrant letting everyone run around with murder tools. That's how you end up in a fucking state of violence like the US.

Even low-balling estimates have instances of defensive gun use around 100,000 annually. Now, if we didn't have so many guns in the hands of bad people, DGU wouldn't be as necessary, but we do, so it is.

Minute posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Did he shoot up Canada because of a lower chance of encountering armed citizens? If he had the gun here, why not shoot up a US place?

Or was he not the one that smuggled the gun?

Read the article. He didn't smuggle the gun, he purchased it illegally from a gun smuggler.

Ain't no body got time for that shit, which is why I asked you, who presumably does have time for that shit.

Did he shoot up Canada because of a lower chance of encountering armed citizens? If he had the gun here, why not shoot up a US place?

Or was he not the one that smuggled the gun?

Same category as people who buy cigarettes.

Stupid lowest common denominator people.

l Dudeboy l posted...

gmanthebest posted...

eston posted...

Ilishe posted...

Holy shit I would not stop torturing that man for TEN YEARS.

He would no longer be able to even beg for death because his mind would have broken YEARS AGO.

And it still wouldn't be enough punishment.

"omg what this man did is horrible! Now let me sit here and fantasize about torturing him"

Not seeing your point. What's wrong with torturing someone who threw acid on a three year old?

It makes you as bad as them.

Haha no it doesn't.