Despite the loss, Pop had a great message, IMO

[DAF86]

There is no factual basis to say that is how all civilians react. None what so ever. The fact is the list of people in this country who have used guns to successfully defend themselves is not a short one and recent history shows us that even unarmed people are willing to confront armed terrorist. When you say gun fantics you have this picture in your mind of a bunch of neckbeards sitting in a bunker drinking beer and telling what they would have done is them "damn towel heads" tried to get them. That couldn't be further from the truth. The vast majority of gun owners in this country are just every day responsible law abiding citizens. Concealed carry ups the bar quite a bit and a lot of people will have a fair amount of range time and training if they decide to go that route. Your weapon is only as good as the person carrying it. FYI most of the guys I work with can out shoot the officers we work with by a great deal.

I totally agree with you that a little screwball kid can do infinitely more damage with a gun. No question, but the guns have always been here and the reality is they are far more difficult to get now than they have ever been. So what's different? From my perspective two parties bear the lions share of the blame. Our media is one of them. We have these media freenzies that to an extent they turn into a sick celebration of the horrendous event. And the louder it gets the more it helps to further purputrate the very idea all the talking heads are condeming. But it isJoe Q public who are ultimately the ones who tune in. It doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative, they are all watching.

By "gun fanatics" I just meant "people that use guns a lot". I don't why you painted all that crazy scenario about what you thought I meant with that, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

I think Gregg is gonna be alright; his accomplishments alone will get him an hour with someone. Out of curiosity, what do you contribute that would garner a 30 for 30?

Nah. That's Timmy's video. He just came along for the ride.

[Spurtacular]

Pop feeling extra Liberal today with Obama's painting being unveiled

Pop never struck me as a liberal back in the day. While I don't don't doubt he has rolled some in that direction, I think he is trying to make his own legacy now. He knows the NBA and the associative media won't be pimping conservative white dudes at the end of the day.

[Spurtacular]

Who in government is a theocrat?

[Brazil]

Whatever you have to tell yourself there Mr Really Educated.

your capitulation is duly noted pos

I am quickly getting the impression that your MO is to avoid avoid avoid so you don't have to actually respond to the conversation. If that is the quite educated method then you might want to kindly ask for your money back.

Still thinking you are the one hitting a nerve ?

after 14 years you finally found something to post about on this board.. Grats.. and you’re welcome red neck clown

I just speak one language but I traveled a lot... that makes me a specialist of what a great country is Murica

[Atl Spur]

Nah. That's Timmy's video. He just came along for the ride.

Two people can have success that piggy backs and/or is intertwined with one another's accomplishments. Giving credit to his players has always been a constant.

[SequSpur]

I don't give a about Pop's message. When is this dumb ass going to realize we want to watch a team win or at least make ing trades rather than rolling with guards that suck balls and bigs that play like ing guards. I don't give a about his message honestly.

[Nathan89]

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

If you want to take away guns because it's dangerous then you should also want to take away alcohol tbh. They aren't saying anything though because they like alcohol. The fact that the only variable(from their perspective) that changes is "like" or "unlike" really pisses me off tbh. So ing selfish.

[spurraider21]

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

If you want to take away guns because it's dangerous then you should also want to take away alcohol tbh. They aren't saying anything though because they like alcohol. The fact that the only variable(from their perspective) that changes is "like" or "unlike" really pisses me off tbh. So ing selfish.

the parkland students would have been much safer if cruz had some vodka and a car rather than an AR-15

[Chris]

the parkland students would have been much safer if teachers,coaches, or vets were there with a gun to stop Cruz.

fify

[spurraider21]

fify

or if he had a less lethal weapon than an AR-15

[Chris]

or if he had a less lethal weapon than an AR-15

What's stopping Cruz from going into Mexico and getting an AR-15 then? You haven't thought this ban thingy out. I have. You would have to ban the entire North and South American continents and then screen every boat that comes to our shores for AR-15's. Gun control/bans is a dumb argument filled with holes.

[Nathan89]

the parkland students would have been much safer if cruz had some vodka and a car rather than an AR-15

Disregard 10,265 deaths just like that, huh? Like I said the only changing variable is that you like alcohol and not guns. Selfish.

[spurraider21]

What's stopping Cruz from going into Mexico and getting an AR-15 then? You haven't thought this ban thingy out. I have. You would have to ban the entire North and South American continents and then screen every boat that comes to our shores for AR-15's. Gun control/bans is a dumb argument filled with holes.

if he had a less lethal weapon than an AR-15, the kids would have been safer

[spurraider21]

Disregard 10,265 deaths just like that, huh? Like I said the only changing variable is that you like alcohol and not guns. Selfish.

the difference between number of drunk drivers and shooters is also a changing variable.

i think the number of drunk driving deaths would increase if we made drunk driving legal and allowed people to have open alcohol containers in the car. just because those rules dont eliminate drunk driving deaths, that doesn't mean they're ineffective or wasteful

[cd98]

the parkland students would have been much safer if cruz had some vodka and a car rather than an AR-15

Just throwing it out there, but is the goal fewer over all deaths or fewer mass killings. I think an AR-15 ban may reduce some mass killings or at least lower the death toll in a mass shooting, but it wouldn’t dent the overall death toll related to guns. To lower the death toll, you’d probably need to ban handguns. But if you ban either, aren’t there enough guns out there that it would be impossible to take them off the streets, especially given the black market? If there is a demand for AR-15s, there will always be a supply on the black market.

[spurs10]

the difference between number of drunk drivers and shooters is also a changing variable.

i think the number of drunk driving deaths would increase if we made drunk driving legal and allowed people to have open alcohol containers in the car. just because those rules dont eliminate drunk driving deaths, that doesn't mean they're ineffective or wasteful

Absolutely!

[Nathan89]

Comical how the root difference is seemingly a selfish perspective but they are convinced the difference is intelligence or being more caring of other people. No, that's absolutely not the case. For the record I am for alcohol and guns. I own zero guns and barely consume alcohol. One just has to understand you can't force/control other peoples lives especially not for fringe statistics. All in the name of virtue signaling and the result of media narrative I guess.

[Chris]

Just throwing it out there, but is the goal fewer over all deaths or fewer mass killings. I think an AR-15 ban may reduce some mass killings or at least lower the death toll in a mass shooting, but it wouldn’t dent the overall death toll related to guns. To lower the death toll, you’d probably need to ban handguns. But if you ban either, aren’t there enough guns out there that it would be impossible to take them off the streets, especially given the black market? If there is a demand for AR-15s, there will always be a supply on the black market.

[spurraider21]

Comical how the root difference is seemingly a selfish perspective but they are convinced the difference is intelligence or being more caring of other people. No, that's absolutely not the case. For the record I am for alcohol and guns. I own zero guns and barely consume alcohol. One just has to understand you can't force/control other peoples lives especially not for fringe statistics. All in the name of virtue signaling and the result of media narrative I guess.

I don't want to ban alcohol

Are you suggesting legalizing drunk driving?

[bic50]

But why the ar15?

[tholdren]

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

If you want to take away guns because it's dangerous then you should also want to take away alcohol tbh. They aren't saying anything though because they like alcohol. The fact that the only variable(from their perspective) that changes is "like" or "unlike" really pisses me off tbh. So ing selfish.

That statistic is not real. Just so you know. Alcohol related only means that ANYONE involved in the wreck had alcoohol.

Stupid money grab stat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alco..._United_States

That is, if i was your dd and i wrecked the car with you in it and someone died, that would be considered an alcohol related fatality.

[spurraider21]

Just throwing it out there, but is the goal fewer over all deaths or fewer mass killings.

why not both? i think the mass shootings are their own problem because of the randomness of the victims. there's no way to really avoid them except for staying in a bunker.

I think an AR-15 ban may reduce some mass killings or at least lower the death toll in a mass shooting, but it wouldn’t dent the overall death toll related to guns.

true. most gun deaths happen with handguns, as those are significantly more common in the more typical murders where the killer knows the victim personally. if you want to kill your ex-wife or something, or if a drug dealer wants to kill a rival, a handgun is probably the easiest way to do that. i don't think we can really legislate that away without a massive gun confiscation which is probably uncons utional. i dont see why we shouldn't at least aim to reduce senseless and seemingly motive-less mass shootings. just look at vegas. there's no way it should be legal for a person to own that much destructive capability

To lower the death toll, you’d probably need to ban handguns.

yeah, talked about that above. i think murder in the greater scheme of things is closer to impossible to legislating away. but why not at least focus on an issue that we CAN work to mitigate? like random mass shootings

But if you ban either, aren’t there enough guns out there that it would be impossible to take them off the streets, especially given the black market?

yes, part of the problem is not only the ease of acquiring these guns legally, but also because we have a massive availability of guns in general. there are 100 million guns in this country. it's an insane number. the US has the most guns per capita on the planet and there isn't a close second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...ita_by_country

that's why i said the only way we're going to legislate away gun violence altogether is with confiscation, but i don't see that happening. but we can decrease it by at least not making it legal to acquire one. why do people feel secure having a gate in front of their house and a locked door if a burglar can jump the gate and break in? it's a deterrence. a hurdle. maybe that buys time for the system to flag somebody as a threat.

If there is a demand for AR-15s, there will always be a supply on the black market.

where is the supply in Australia, Japan, or England?

by this logic we shouldn't make anything illegal to own. like at all.

[spurraider21]

But why the ar15?

the AR-15 is an incredibly common choice when it comes to mass shootings... i would definitely increase the scope to other "AR-15 type guns" aka semi automatic rifles

[Nathan89]

the difference between number of drunk drivers and shooters is also a changing variable.

i think the number of drunk driving deaths would increase if we made drunk driving legal and allowed people to have open alcohol containers in the car. just because those rules dont eliminate drunk driving deaths, that doesn't mean they're ineffective or wasteful

My original comment started with "If you want to take away guns..." aimed at people that want to ban guns. Your comments seemingly don't pertain to what my point was at all.