It’s like we are ashamed that we were attacked cuz it must have been our fault in the first place…
Well, that skirt we were wearing was pretty short…
When I was a kid; plenty of folks were still miffed about Pearl Harbor; understood that better as I got older. But 9/11 is definitely treated differently and I do not understand why those who try to control our culture do so much to downplay it.
I still want revenge. Terrible, make-them-carp-their pants-in-fear revenge. I want the rest of the world to be wary of pissing us off. Especially radical Islam; they have made it known they wish to defeat us and I personally have zero problem with using extreme, overkill violence against them.
Much as we try to pretend otherwise, radical Islam is at war with us and there is precisely one thing those bastards seem to comprehend: violence. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be befriended. They’ve made it abundantly clear their end-game is dominion and we ought to treat them appropriately.
Happy Wednesday, Gerbil Nation!
Good morning, Fatwa!
I read something the other day regarding the situation in Afghanistan. The general in charge of that theater of operations told the President (or the President’s advisers) that we should get out of Afghanistan and stay out -- except for targeted attacks on terrorists -- until Afghans stop killing Afghans, which may be never.
It’s a science site on the internet, so I figure they must know what they are talking about. There’s this paragraph: “The data reveal that while semi-automatic rifles are only used in a minority of active shooter incidents (24.6 percent), those attacks result in almost twice as many people being wounded or killed compared to shootings that don’t involve semi-automatic firearms”
I quibble with the author switching from “semi-automatic rifles” to “semi-automatic firearms” in the same sentence. But then it’s followed by this sentence: “That enhanced killing ability comes courtesy of semi-automatics’ self-loading capabilities, which mean bullets can be quickly and repeatedly fired with every separate trigger pull and release, whereas single-shot firearms – including many – require manual loading, which is slower.” “Many” what? And now you are comparing semi-auto riles to single shot firearms?
Then the article moves on to this: “On average, attacks with semi-automatic rifles wound 5.48 people per active shooter incident and kill 4.25 people per incident. By contrast, incidents with only non-semi-automatic firearms (including handguns, shotguns, and other kinds of rifles) wounded 3.02 people on average and killed 2.49.” So you are going to completely ignore semi-auto pistols? And this makes sense how?
What am I missing here?
The article referred to was recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association – so once again, it must be reputable. I click the link helpfully inserted at the end of the other article and pop over to JAMA. The research letter, Lethality of Civilian Active Shooter Incidents With and Without Semiautomatic Rifles in the United States, starts out with this gem: “Semiautomatic rifles have been used in some of the largest active shooter incidents in US history. The weapons were banned in 1994 under the federal assault weapons ban but were reintroduced to the public marketplace in 2004.”
FFS. These are my betters and I should be listening to them and letting them set policy?
Mid-week salutations, GN!
Well, that skirt we were wearing was pretty short…
When I was a kid; plenty of folks were still miffed about Pearl Harbor; understood that better as I got older. But 9/11 is definitely treated differently and I do not understand why those who try to control our culture do so much to downplay it.
I still want revenge. Terrible, make-them-carp-their pants-in-fear revenge. I want the rest of the world to be wary of pissing us off. Especially radical Islam; they have made it known they wish to defeat us and I personally have zero problem with using extreme, overkill violence against them.
Much as we try to pretend otherwise, radical Islam is at war with us and there is precisely one thing those bastards seem to comprehend: violence. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be befriended. They’ve made it abundantly clear their end-game is dominion and we ought to treat them appropriately.
===============================
Happy Wednesday, Gerbil Nation!
Good morning, Fatwa!
I read something the other day regarding the situation in Afghanistan. The general in charge of that theater of operations told the President (or the President’s advisers) that we should get out of Afghanistan and stay out -- except for targeted attacks on terrorists -- until Afghans stop killing Afghans, which may be never.
Good morning, Paddy!
I think the military proposal you refer to has some merit; we deal with targeted terrorists only and let the Afghans sort-out the rest.
I’m down with this:
LOL!
Hello!
Good webcam link to Wilmington NC: https://explore.org/livecams/frying-pan/sky-tower
I came across this article today: Semi-Automatic Rifles Really Are More Deadly, New Study Clearly Shows
https://www.sciencealert.com/first-of-its-kind-study-calculates-deadly-semi-automatic-rifles-gun-control-violence-firearms
It’s a science site on the internet, so I figure they must know what they are talking about. There’s this paragraph: “The data reveal that while semi-automatic rifles are only used in a minority of active shooter incidents (24.6 percent), those attacks result in almost twice as many people being wounded or killed compared to shootings that don’t involve semi-automatic firearms”
I quibble with the author switching from “semi-automatic rifles” to “semi-automatic firearms” in the same sentence. But then it’s followed by this sentence: “That enhanced killing ability comes courtesy of semi-automatics’ self-loading capabilities, which mean bullets can be quickly and repeatedly fired with every separate trigger pull and release, whereas single-shot firearms – including many – require manual loading, which is slower.” “Many” what? And now you are comparing semi-auto riles to single shot firearms?
Then the article moves on to this: “On average, attacks with semi-automatic rifles wound 5.48 people per active shooter incident and kill 4.25 people per incident. By contrast, incidents with only non-semi-automatic firearms (including handguns, shotguns, and other kinds of rifles) wounded 3.02 people on average and killed 2.49.” So you are going to completely ignore semi-auto pistols? And this makes sense how?
What am I missing here?
The article referred to was recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association – so once again, it must be reputable. I click the link helpfully inserted at the end of the other article and pop over to JAMA. The research letter, Lethality of Civilian Active Shooter Incidents With and Without Semiautomatic Rifles in the United States, starts out with this gem: “Semiautomatic rifles have been used in some of the largest active shooter incidents in US history. The weapons were banned in 1994 under the federal assault weapons ban but were reintroduced to the public marketplace in 2004.”
FFS. These are my betters and I should be listening to them and letting them set policy?
I think Mark Twain had something to say in opposition to that statement.