Author Topic: New Zealand's confusing Christian Mosque gets shot up.  (Read 7548 times)

the real question is, why didn't he shoot up a synagogue instead?
he couldn’t spell it for the video title

They should've just blown his brains out tbh, this is the type of guy who will craft the most devious, perfected statement to sow the highest amount of chaos. I have no doubt instead of defending himself with some legal nonsense he'll say some racially charged, meme-laden bullstuff for the media to masturbate over. Calling it now.
i feel like this is gonna be pretty accurate

I don't argue with retard commies, crawl back to your commune you friend lipped pusillanimous individual

User was banned for this post

sad... truly sad... will the censorship of conservatives ever end???

I don't argue with retard commies, crawl back to your commune you friend lipped pusillanimous individual

User was banned for this post
Uh... Communism is alright, tbh.
There was no mass murders or genocides under communism.

Please don't ban me to the gulag.

Deus should take this time to take some chill pills and learn that sounding angry all the time isn't always acceptable social behavior

I don't argue with retard commies, crawl back to your commune you friend lipped pusillanimous individual

User was banned for this post
Unban this man

Uh... Communism is alright, tbh.
There was no mass murders or genocides under communism.

Please don't ban me to the gulag.
hes banned for flaming, not because hes against communism...

hes banned for flaming, not because hes against communism...
And by letter of the rule it’s a deserved ban, and probably not perm if hes not a repeat offender. the rule pretty much says that if you're calling someone a forgetin retard, give an actual reason. it's more a matter of flaming being unprovoked or without given reason/basis
-person who’s been banned a forgetton for flaming people that often deserved it
« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 08:06:25 PM by Grimlock² »

hes banned for flaming, not because hes against communism...


[img ]https://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/0512dd8b5febf794501545cb2e903ae4600921.jpg?v=3[/img]

your inability to see how deus' post is flaming shows how incompetent and socially unaware you are

« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 06:59:12 PM by Drydess »

also friendly reminder: Rifles are the weapon of a disproportionally low % of shootings and mass shootings(in the united states) and are less lethal at the range these incidents typically occur than handguns. There's a large stack of unbiased statistical evidence that proves this. If you really want to reduce these incidents, banning a firearm because of how it looks isn't the issue, finding ways to prevent the risk-person from acquiring the fire arm(with due process) is *far* more important.

also friendly reminder: Rifles are the weapon of a disproportionally low % of shootings and mass shootings(in the united states) and are less lethal at the range these incidents typically occur than handguns. There's a large stack of unbiased statistical evidence that proves this. If you really want to reduce these incidents, banning a firearm because of how it looks isn't the issue, finding ways to prevent the risk-person from acquiring the fire arm(with due process) is *far* more important.
Yeah this is the thing, banning handguns seems pretty unrealistic but in reality most gun crime is with handguns. It's just not populized because these incidents usually involve 1 or maybe 2-3 people getting shot, whereas the obviously more covered stories are of the rare mass shootings with rifles and such. Overall, I think handgun violence vastly outweighs semi automatic rifle violence.

Yeah this is the thing, banning handguns seems pretty unrealistic but in reality most gun crime is with handguns. It's just not populized because these incidents usually involve 1 or maybe 2-3 people getting shot, whereas the obviously more covered stories are of the rare mass shootings with rifles and such. Overall, I think handgun violence vastly outweighs semi automatic rifle violence.
You’d be suprised the % of mass shootings that are done with handguns. I just don’t see how one can justify banning a certan kind of firearm that statistics say isn’t the main issue. There are much better non kneejerk/uneducated democratic pipe dream solutions to this problem.

rifles are designed for combat at range while mass shootings tend to occur at short ranges, so the statistics make sense.

stronger regulation is needed if you want to go down the route of “stop people with problems from getting guns” tho, and it doesnt seem that theres much productive conversation about that. usually what i hear is “common sense regulation” from the conservative side and “ban” from the liberal side, which does nothing to reaching a compromise.