Some are dead in Germany. Yep, you guessed it.

Here we go.

Can't be true. These things only happen here.

I'm taking back the 15 number. Now the news is saying not sure.

Where are they reporting 15 dead? All I see is one confirmed death right now.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Where are they reporting 15 dead? All I see is one confirmed death right now.

Took it back already.

LooseGoose wrote:Can't be true. These things only happen here.

Please explain to me how you think this is any better than Bob posting "thoughts and prayers." Please. I want to know how to think you're not just two sides of the same coin. I gotta hear the explanation.

Thanks :)

(*Dislcaimer to Travis*... I'm being facetious and trying to find some political humor in something not very funny at all)

I just don't understand how this is possible. I thought gun laws were supposed to mean this stuff doesn't happen or maybe happens ones every 5-10 years. Not 5-10 days.

xsanguine wrote:(*Dislcaimer to Travis*... I'm being facetious and trying to find some political humor in something not very funny at all)

I just don't understand how this is possible. I thought gun laws were supposed to mean this stuff doesn't happen or maybe happens ones every 5-10 years. Not 5-10 days.

That's fine. Gooses comment just struck me as very very very very Bob.

But, in answer to both of your questions- no one ever said gun laws could 100% eliminate gun deaths. So, you know, yeah.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Can't be true. These things only happen here.

Please explain to me how you think this is any better than Bob posting "thoughts and prayers." Please. I want to know how to think you're not just two sides of the same coin. I gotta hear the explanation.

Thanks :)

I can see why LG and Bob annoy people. But cut them some slack, they're just trying to figure this whole message board thing like the rest of us. We can't all be gurus flipping switches in the dark behind a curtain, running the world, like Travis Of The Cosmos.

(was that too annoying? I'm trying to be friendlier, especially to you, Travis... which I know will be a long road. But your acceptance is important to my e-psyche).

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:(*Dislcaimer to Travis*... I'm being facetious and trying to find some political humor in something not very funny at all)

I just don't understand how this is possible. I thought gun laws were supposed to mean this stuff doesn't happen or maybe happens ones every 5-10 years. Not 5-10 days.

That's fine. Gooses comment just struck me as very very very very Bob.

But, in answer to both of your questions- no one ever said gun laws could 100% eliminate gun deaths. So, you know, yeah.

I do know that. I was just trying to make a somewhat political joke by exaggerating the position of the other side. It's my poor attempt at humor and if it just made you more apt to wanting nothing to do with me... that was the opposite effect I was looking for.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Please explain to me how you think this is any better than Bob posting "thoughts and prayers." Please. I want to know how to think you're not just two sides of the same coin. I gotta hear the explanation.

Thanks :)

I can see why LG and Bob annoy people. But cut them some slack, they're just trying to figure this whole message board thing like the rest of us. We can't all be gurus flipping switches in the dark behind a curtain, running the world, like Travis Of The Cosmos.

(was that too annoying? I'm trying to be friendlier, especially to you, Travis... which I know will be a long road. But your acceptance is important to my e-psyche).

Theoretically you could just not reply too. Sometimes not always being in someone's face can be nice too :)

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

That's fine. Gooses comment just struck me as very very very very Bob.

But, in answer to both of your questions- no one ever said gun laws could 100% eliminate gun deaths. So, you know, yeah.

I do know that. I was just trying to make a somewhat political joke by exaggerating the position of the other side. It's my poor attempt at humor and if it just made you more apt to wanting nothing to do with me... that was the opposite effect I was looking for.

I think you may be seeing angst in my reply that doesn't exist.... But, I would tell you that exaggerating the other sides opinion is the very definition of putting words in people's mouths. If you really want to work on not coming off as rude :)

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:(*Dislcaimer to Travis*... I'm being facetious and trying to find some political humor in something not very funny at all)

I just don't understand how this is possible. I thought gun laws were supposed to mean this stuff doesn't happen or maybe happens ones every 5-10 years. Not 5-10 days.

That's fine. Gooses comment just struck me as very very very very Bob.

But, in answer to both of your questions- no one ever said gun laws could 100% eliminate gun deaths. So, you know, yeah.

Well it all annoys the hell out of me that we always blame the gun not the perp. Like Nice - how many blamed the Truck there? But I guarantee had it been done with guns we'd have heard about gun control. So same end result, yet gun control is sane and truck control is inane?

I find it all silly - like the Massachusetts Attorney General that just arbitrarily banned many more rifles. Know how many murders involved rifles in MA in the last year of stats available? Zero. Yet she's being hailed for "doing something"?? Silliness.

If she wants to DO something why not go after the weapon used most often in suicides and murders? The handgun. Anyone want to venture why the Dems don't focus on handguns rather than rifles?

BuzzFeed News ‏@BuzzFeedNews 37m37 minutes ago
Munich Update:

- Police say shooting at shopping center is "over"
- At least 1 dead, 10 injured, @AFP reports

==========
RIP to the one dead.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

That's fine. Gooses comment just struck me as very very very very Bob.

But, in answer to both of your questions- no one ever said gun laws could 100% eliminate gun deaths. So, you know, yeah.

Well it all annoys the hell out of me that we always blame the gun not the perp. Like Nice - how many blamed the Truck there? But I guarantee had it been done with guns we'd have heard about gun control. So same end result, yet gun control is sane and truck control is inane?

I find it all silly - like the Massachusetts Attorney General that just arbitrarily banned many more rifles. Know how many murders involved rifles in MA in the last year of stats available? Zero. Yet she's being hailed for "doing something"?? Silliness.

If she wants to DO something why not go after the weapon used most often in suicides and murders? The handgun. Anyone want to venture why the Dems don't focus on handguns rather than rifles?

Do you want people to focus on handguns? Would you be willing to even listen and consider that I they did go there?

They are just targeting what they may, possibly, somehow, be able to have an impact on. Of course, they're wrong. They'll never be able to do shit. But they want to believe they can.

That's also why I don't understand why folks like you get so worked up about it. You won. You won a long time ago. Why bother fighting about it at this point? You won. Guns aren't leaving and everyone knows that, including dreamers that wish they could leave. Even they know it's not going to change.

So kick back. Relax. Clean your gun without fear that Obama is taking it. He isn't. Perhaps because he can't and perhaps because he doesn't want to, but either way, he isn't.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I do know that. I was just trying to make a somewhat political joke by exaggerating the position of the other side. It's my poor attempt at humor and if it just made you more apt to wanting nothing to do with me... that was the opposite effect I was looking for.

I think you may be seeing angst in my reply that doesn't exist.... But, I would tell you that exaggerating the other sides opinion is the very definition of putting words in people's mouths. If you really want to work on not coming off as rude :)

I do sense the angst. Yes I could have just not replied... I was just trying to participate.

I'm sorry.

The exaggerating part was supposed to be kind of the joke.

You know, like when Bob calls everyone racist and laughs and no one else (you), never calls him on it?

I get it... my political persuasion is different so my exaggerated jokes aren't funny to you. I'm just trying.

Man, making friends in real life is a piece of cake... you guys really do have your cliques made up and that's that.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I think you may be seeing angst in my reply that doesn't exist.... But, I would tell you that exaggerating the other sides opinion is the very definition of putting words in people's mouths. If you really want to work on not coming off as rude :)

I do sense the angst. Yes I could have just not replied... I was just trying to participate.

I'm sorry.

There was no angst :)

xsanguine wrote:The exaggerating part was supposed to be kind of the joke.

You know, like when Bob calls everyone racist and laughs and no one else (you), never calls him on it?

I get it... my political persuasion is different so my exaggerated jokes aren't funny to you. I'm just trying.

Man, making friends in real life is a piece of cake... you guys really do have your cliques made up and that's that.

I never call Bob out because 57 other people do. I recognize it as a lost cause. Goose probably didn't realize how Bob ish his reply was and may actually not do the exact same thing next time... Bob will no matter what anyone says.

Also, in regards to making friends... X... That's all in your head. We aren't fighting right now. We're barely even arguing. You're making that part up in your head.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Well it all annoys the hell out of me that we always blame the gun not the perp. Like Nice - how many blamed the Truck there? But I guarantee had it been done with guns we'd have heard about gun control. So same end result, yet gun control is sane and truck control is inane?

I find it all silly - like the Massachusetts Attorney General that just arbitrarily banned many more rifles. Know how many murders involved rifles in MA in the last year of stats available? Zero. Yet she's being hailed for "doing something"?? Silliness.

If she wants to DO something why not go after the weapon used most often in suicides and murders? The handgun. Anyone want to venture why the Dems don't focus on handguns rather than rifles?

Do you want people to focus on handguns? Would you be willing to even listen and consider that I they did go there?

They are just targeting what they may, possibly, somehow, be able to have an impact on. Of course, they're wrong. They'll never be able to do shit. But they want to believe they can.

That's also why I don't understand why folks like you get so worked up about it. You won. You won a long time ago. Why bother fighting about it at this point? You won. Guns aren't leaving and everyone knows that, including dreamers that wish they could leave. Even they know it's not going to change.

So kick back. Relax. Clean your gun without fear that Obama is taking it. He isn't. Perhaps because he can't and perhaps because he doesn't want to, but either way, he isn't.

I don't know, man. The way people are talking.... I mean, it's incremental. A little registration law here, a little magazine max load here. It doesn't take long to get where he's talking about.

It's not like we're gaining gun rights. They're being discussed as being taken away piece by piece. That's why people talk about the slippery slope.

And I'm still trying to be extra friendly. So please, unless you're in a real bad mood, don't yell at me.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Also, in regards to making friends... X... That's all in your head. We aren't fighting right now. We're barely even arguing. You're making that part up in your head.

Maybe it is in my head. I just go by how people treat (or in this case) respond to me.

Sometimes people play around throw jokes... others say the equivalent of (as you did)... you don't need to be in this thread, no one cares. That probably would have been teh better option

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Also, in regards to making friends... X... That's all in your head. We aren't fighting right now. We're barely even arguing. You're making that part up in your head.

Maybe it is in my head. I just go by how people treat (or in this case) respond to me.

Sometimes people play around throw jokes... others say the equivalent of (as you did)... you don't need to be in this thread, no one cares. That probably would have been teh better option

That's not what I said x.

Sorry, I was extrapolating this part...."Theoretically you could just not reply too."

If you didn't mean "we really just don't want you apart of this"... then I'm sorry.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Well it all annoys the hell out of me that we always blame the gun not the perp. Like Nice - how many blamed the Truck there? But I guarantee had it been done with guns we'd have heard about gun control. So same end result, yet gun control is sane and truck control is inane?

I find it all silly - like the Massachusetts Attorney General that just arbitrarily banned many more rifles. Know how many murders involved rifles in MA in the last year of stats available? Zero. Yet she's being hailed for "doing something"?? Silliness.

If she wants to DO something why not go after the weapon used most often in suicides and murders? The handgun. Anyone want to venture why the Dems don't focus on handguns rather than rifles?

Do you want people to focus on handguns? Would you be willing to even listen and consider that I they did go there?

They are just targeting what they may, possibly, somehow, be able to have an impact on. Of course, they're wrong. They'll never be able to do shit. But they want to believe they can.

That's also why I don't understand why folks like you get so worked up about it. You won. You won a long time ago. Why bother fighting about it at this point? You won. Guns aren't leaving and everyone knows that, including dreamers that wish they could leave. Even they know it's not going to change.

So kick back. Relax. Clean your gun without fear that Obama is taking it. He isn't. Perhaps because he can't and perhaps because he doesn't want to, but either way, he isn't.

Except that the lady in MA just did ban an entire class of rifles, including a large percentage of hunting rifles. So vigilance is necessary.

I'm easily convinced that more restrictions on hand guns is a good idea. It will never happen because the Dems will balk. Still waiting for you to tell me why.

xsanguine wrote:Sorry, I was extrapolating this part...."Theoretically you could just not reply too."

If you didn't mean "we really just don't want you apart of this"... then I'm sorry.

Yes, you extrapolated incorrectly.

See, that doesn't mean that you don't need to reply to the thread. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't ever participate, but sometimes maybe just not reply specifically to me every single time. Say, perhaps, reply to otpt this time. Talk to him. Then come back to me next time. Then turtleneck the time after.

I dunno. You don't have to be that rigid about it but perhaps not every single time like you have been lately.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Do you want people to focus on handguns? Would you be willing to even listen and consider that I they did go there?

They are just targeting what they may, possibly, somehow, be able to have an impact on. Of course, they're wrong. They'll never be able to do shit. But they want to believe they can.

That's also why I don't understand why folks like you get so worked up about it. You won. You won a long time ago. Why bother fighting about it at this point? You won. Guns aren't leaving and everyone knows that, including dreamers that wish they could leave. Even they know it's not going to change.

So kick back. Relax. Clean your gun without fear that Obama is taking it. He isn't. Perhaps because he can't and perhaps because he doesn't want to, but either way, he isn't.

Except that the lady in MA just did ban an entire class of rifles, including a large percentage of hunting rifles. So vigilance is necessary.

I'm easily convinced that more restrictions on hand guns is a good idea. It will never happen because the Dems will balk. Still waiting for you to tell me why.

I already told you the why. Because there's no chance in hell. You might feel that way. The rest don't. Not a single f'n chance in hell.

LooseGoose wrote:

I'm easily convinced that more restrictions on hand guns is a good idea.

What in the fuck did I just read?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Sorry, I was extrapolating this part...."Theoretically you could just not reply too."

If you didn't mean "we really just don't want you apart of this"... then I'm sorry.

Yes, you extrapolated incorrectly.

See, that doesn't mean that you don't need to reply to the thread. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't ever participate, but sometimes maybe just not reply specifically to me every single time. Say, perhaps, reply to otpt this time. Talk to him. Then come back to me next time. Then turtleneck the time after.

I dunno. You don't have to be that rigid about it but perhaps not every single time like you have been lately.

But I like your posts, Travis. So a lot of the time I want to reply to what you said.

Forget it. I'll just leave you alone.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yes, you extrapolated incorrectly.

See, that doesn't mean that you don't need to reply to the thread. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't ever participate, but sometimes maybe just not reply specifically to me every single time. Say, perhaps, reply to otpt this time. Talk to him. Then come back to me next time. Then turtleneck the time after.

I dunno. You don't have to be that rigid about it but perhaps not every single time like you have been lately.

But I like your posts, Travis. So a lot of the time I want to reply to what you said.

Forget it. I'll just leave you alone.

You're really bad at understanding. Or I'm bad at explaining. Whatever. Or you're thinking too hard. Or you're just bored and trolling a bunch for funsies. I dunno. Any of those.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

But I like your posts, Travis. So a lot of the time I want to reply to what you said.

Forget it. I'll just leave you alone.

You're really bad at understanding. Or I'm bad at explaining. Whatever. Or you're thinking too hard. Or you're just bored and trolling a bunch for funsies. I dunno. Any of those.

No, I'm just not good at this, Travis.

Maybe you are explaining it wrong... my interpretation is (We don't care about your opinion because we've heard it a million times... you'd be better served just not participating).

And I would agree. I just thought I would join in.

xsanguine wrote:The exaggerating part was supposed to be kind of the joke.


I get it... my political persuasion is different so my exaggerated jokes aren't funny to you. I'm just trying.

You are really too much of an asshole to make a subtle or exaggerated joke work.

This just seems routine now. Sadly.

Every friggin week...

BleacherSwill wrote:

xsanguine wrote:The exaggerating part was supposed to be kind of the joke.


I get it... my political persuasion is different so my exaggerated jokes aren't funny to you. I'm just trying.

You are really too much of an asshole to make a subtle or exaggerated joke work.

Wow, someone I've never even noticed before giving their two cents.

Well, thanks for the compliment.

BleacherSwill wrote:

xsanguine wrote:The exaggerating part was supposed to be kind of the joke.


I get it... my political persuasion is different so my exaggerated jokes aren't funny to you. I'm just trying.

You are really too much of an asshole to make a subtle or exaggerated joke work.

This is what I assume Travis really wants to say to me but realizes the situation I'm in and would rather not have any of that on his hands.

xsanguine wrote:

BleacherSwill wrote:

You are really too much of an asshole to make a subtle or exaggerated joke work.

This is what I assume Travis really wants to say to me but realizes the situation I'm in and would rather not have any of that on his hands.

You think maybe, just maybe, you're being a bit of a dramatic child lately?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Except that the lady in MA just did ban an entire class of rifles, including a large percentage of hunting rifles.  So vigilance is necessary.

I'm easily convinced that more restrictions on hand guns is a good idea.  It will never happen because the Dems will balk.   Still waiting for you to tell me why.

I already told you the why. Because there's no chance in hell. You might feel that way. The rest don't. Not a single f'n chance in hell.

One could say the same thing about rifles, yet they try.

And I know I get shit about making everything political or between the parties - but for those that operate in DC and make our laws everything IS political.  Realistically that class includes those that report on the whole scene.

So what do I see as political on the rifles vs hand guns thing?   Remove all political blinders for a moment and tell me something.  As a percentage of ownership do more rifle owners live in blue areas or red areas?   As a percentage of ownership do more hand gun owners live in blue areas or red areas?   Answer honestly and you have the reason that Dems target rifles, not handguns.  



They want to take guns away from Republican voters, not Democrat voters.  They don't want to rile their own base up.

xsanguine wrote:

BleacherSwill wrote:

You are really too much of an asshole to make a subtle or exaggerated joke work.

This is what I assume Travis really wants to say to me but realizes the situation I'm in and would rather not have any of that on his hands.

Jesus Christ man. Give this shit a break already. You over analyze everything, usually incorrectly. Take a fucking break from this board once in a while.

Automatic assault rifles (yes, I know. They aren't really automatic go with me here) are a much easier target than soft and caring lookig handguns. Maybe start calling them death bringers and it would be an easier sell.

Come on man, if anyone should know how selling people through fear works it's a republican! That's your guys' whole thing- get votes based off of letting people know what to be scared of!

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

This is what I assume Travis really wants to say to me but realizes the situation I'm in and would rather not have any of that on his hands.

You think maybe, just maybe, you're being a bit of a dramatic child lately?

Very good possibility. Losing both parents on the same day, on crutches for two weeks (not working), and going through a divorce.... I should probably just rub some dirt in it.

I mean, fuck me, who am I, anyways?