LumberJocks

All Replies on OT - Missile slinging devices

  • Advertise with us
View Jimbo4's profile

OT - Missile slinging devices

by Jimbo4
posted 07-25-2012 03:24 PM


1 2 3 4 5 next »
216 replies

216 replies so far

View LukieB's profile

LukieB

942 posts in 1076 days


#1 posted 07-25-2012 03:39 PM

What are you implying by putting incident in quotations?

-- Lucas, "Someday woodworks will be my real job, until then, there's this http://www.melbrownfarmsupply.com"

View Gerald Thompson's profile

Gerald Thompson

438 posts in 981 days


#2 posted 07-25-2012 03:51 PM

Aurora has strict gun regulations. The theature in which the slaughter occured did not allow patrons to have hand guns.
Your post is a flimsy attempt to denigrate the NRA. You have posted no intelligant thought. It does reveal your stupidity however.

-- Jerry

View vernonator's profile

vernonator

68 posts in 1398 days


#3 posted 07-25-2012 03:59 PM

+1 Jerry, +1…

View GMman's profile

GMman

3902 posts in 2444 days


#4 posted 07-25-2012 05:05 PM

I don’t blame it on guns but on TV shows that is where they see all that stuff.
Someone with a little off upstair sees that on TV then they are turned on.

View madts's profile (online now)

madts

1298 posts in 1086 days


#5 posted 07-25-2012 05:46 PM

Jerry: You should check your spelling before you start calling people stupid. Also do not use words with more than 2 syllables.
The NRA has way to much power and should be disbanded. IMHO.

-- Thor and Odin are still the greatest of Gods.

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2597 posts in 2489 days


#6 posted 07-25-2012 07:56 PM

It is no surprise that when OBAMA flies in to address the issue, people immediately think that he will enact some draconian law, by executive order again, circumventing any debate or legislative process.

Yep people respond to perceived threats to their constitutional rights. So they are rushing out to buy things before they are banned.

The NRA should be disbanded right after the ACLU goes, since the Lib mantra is F- the Constitutional rights of the citizens.
The NRA is not FORCING gun ownership, just keeping dumbass liberals in check. Guns are illegal in mexico too…. so the murder rate is really low right? Not all the guns come from the US either – - we don’t make AK47’s

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

View chrisstef's profile

chrisstef

11457 posts in 1753 days


#7 posted 07-25-2012 08:04 PM

distasteful all the way around …

-- "there aren’t many hand tools as awe-inspiring as the #8 jointer. I mean, it just reeks of cast iron heft and hubris" - Smitty

View Gerald Thompson's profile

Gerald Thompson

438 posts in 981 days


#8 posted 07-25-2012 08:45 PM

My spelling was typos. Your reply about disbanding the NRA speqaks for itself. The 2nd amendment is our Bill of Rights. Big goverment would love to see them go.

-- Jerry

View Sawkerf's profile

Sawkerf

1730 posts in 1815 days


#9 posted 07-25-2012 08:55 PM

I’m not sure that I’m seeing your point, Jim. AFAIK, the NRA sees no benefit from increasing gun sales – other than possibly a few new members. I’m also pretty sure that only a small percentage of gun owners are members of the NRA.

Is there more to your story?

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

View madts's profile (online now)

madts

1298 posts in 1086 days


#10 posted 07-25-2012 09:26 PM

I have a kitchen knife ,table saw and other sharp implements. Also a sling-shot. Should be enough. Some guys in the bible though so.

-- Thor and Odin are still the greatest of Gods.

View joebloe's profile

joebloe

157 posts in 1040 days


#11 posted 07-25-2012 09:29 PM

I am a proud member of the NRA .The NRA didn’t put that gun in that freeks hands,they also didn’t pull the trigger on any of the gun’s that done any killing.It is not the NRA’s fault that the gun laws that are on the books are not being enforced.So now tell me the point your tring to make,besides giving your libtard opinion.let’s see some facts.

View Gerald Thompson's profile

Gerald Thompson

438 posts in 981 days


#12 posted 07-25-2012 09:38 PM

Why should the libs let facts intrude into their rants? The Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government.
Big government would take great delight in having an unarmed citizenry.

-- Jerry

View Sawkerf's profile

Sawkerf

1730 posts in 1815 days


#13 posted 07-25-2012 09:56 PM

Chipmunk-
Can you post some links showing that the NRA promotes those things? I’ve seen articles where they’ve defended the right to own them, but nothing that actually promotes them.

Gerald -
The majority of the people I’ve ever debated with are amazed when they read the Bill of Rights and see that they aren’t about giving rights to citizens – they’re explicit restrictions on the powers of the government to interfere with those rights.

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

View MontanaBob's profile

MontanaBob

450 posts in 1430 days


#14 posted 07-25-2012 10:36 PM

DrDirt….I’m a dumbass liberal in your eyes, because I’m not a knuckle dragging right wing moron…Well you had better wake up and smell the coffee…There are millions of us liberals that are gun owners…and the anti-gun crowd is going to really have their day, after this shooting in Colorado. That kind of puts us both in the same boat….Please stay on you side, I don’t want to listen to it…For all you antis out there, as far as I see it there is really nothing to be done….If someone is going to go off the deep end, and want to kill people, there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it….You are safe only if you can defend yourself, or can eliminate other people from having access to you (try that in this day and age)..Be vigilant of people around you, don’t go where there are large groups of people. If you see something you don’t like leave the area…Remember that even if you have a carry permit, and you end up shooting someone…your going to be broke, and or in jail… Years ago I was a NRA member, I really liked their magazine…but the NRA went overboard with the right wing stuff I quit…But if the right to bears arms starts getting hit hard I’ll join if I think it’ll help…. To quote Thomas Jefferson – “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

-- To realize our true destiny, we must be guided not by a myth from our past, but by a vision of our future

View Howie's profile

Howie

2656 posts in 1669 days


#15 posted 07-25-2012 10:54 PM

SS,DD. This argument has and will go on for years and years. Bottom line, if one person in that crowd was a concealed weapon permit holder,some of those people woulda/coulda been saved.
Think of all the things in your wood shop that could be used as a weapon if necessary. But people don’t ban them.
Yeah,I carry and will continue to do so.

-- Life is good.

View patcollins's profile

patcollins

1004 posts in 1611 days


#16 posted 07-25-2012 11:26 PM

What about the incindery devices he made? If he burned down the theatre with a couple mason jars full of gasoline would you have felt better? This guy was going to kill people no matter what he had to do it with.

View Sawkerf's profile

Sawkerf

1730 posts in 1815 days


#17 posted 07-25-2012 11:39 PM

Chipmunk-
In the version of English that I speak, “promote” means to encourage (perhaps require) something. The NRA supports the right, but couldn’t care less if we exercise it.

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

View Gerald Thompson's profile

Gerald Thompson

438 posts in 981 days


#18 posted 07-25-2012 11:43 PM

Stopping a person bent on slaughtering others cannot, for the most part, be stopped. Taking away people’s fire arms only leave them unprotected. It is our right to own and use guns. Look at the countries who do not allow gun ownership. They have their share of mass killings.
As a nation we cannot keep narcotics out. Do you think if guns are outlawed they too won’t end up being smuggled into the U.S?

-- Jerry

View JJohnston's profile

JJohnston

1593 posts in 2038 days


#19 posted 07-25-2012 11:47 PM

This debate has long since grown tiresome. Here’s the deal: I don’t give a shit what guns you have, or don’t have. I don’t give a shit what some politician, or some cop, or some judge says – you can’t have mine, and you don’t need to know how many rounds my magazine holds.

-- "Sometimes even now, when I'm feeling lonely and beat, I drift back in time, and I find my feet...Down on Main Street." - Bob Seger

View oldnovice's profile

oldnovice

3865 posts in 2114 days


#20 posted 07-26-2012 12:01 AM

I fault the NRA because they should be part of a reasonable solution to gun control.

If they are not part of the solution, then they must be part of the problem!

-- "I never met a board I didn't like!"

View Jimbo4's profile

Jimbo4

1172 posts in 1509 days


#21 posted 07-26-2012 12:35 AM

The word incident was ment to be as it is spelled. The NRA only supports the 2nd Amendent for their own good, not for the good of the people. When I said the NRA should be proud about the surge in sales, that is an example of their scare tactics. Nobody is trying to take your guns from “your dead cold hands”, we are trying to get the assult weapons out of “live warm hands”. That old argument about “guns kill people, not people kill people”, is a stupid statement. That’s like saying missiles kill people, cannons kill people, tidle waves kill people, drowning kills people, and on and on. It takes a person behind the trigger to pull that trigger to kill people. How does a gun kill people all by it’s self, magic ?

-- *Arachnoleptic Fit*: The frantic dance performed just after you've accidently walked through a spider web.

View Sawkerf's profile

Sawkerf

1730 posts in 1815 days


#22 posted 07-26-2012 12:44 AM

Jim -
If that statement is so stupid, indulge me with a thought experiment.

Imagine a fully automatic weapon (M16, AK47, Uzi, take your pick), sitting on a shelf loaded, cocked and locked. Now imagine that no living thing touches it for 25 (or more if you like) years. Can it harm anyone?

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

View patcollins's profile

patcollins

1004 posts in 1611 days


#23 posted 07-26-2012 12:54 AM

Jim, what constitutes an assault rifle? The thing is most people dont know, most people label something an assault rifle because it is “scary” looking.

View Jimbo4's profile

Jimbo4

1172 posts in 1509 days


#24 posted 07-26-2012 01:04 AM

Sawkerf – Probably not except, if the ammo went bad, which it does. I’m talking about what people say, “The gun kills people, not the person behind the trigger”. Thats the stupid answer / argument I am referring to. How can anybody use that kind of anology? Without the nut behind the trigger, the person in front of the trigger would not be killed. The question is: What does anybody want with an assult weapon, and why ? Where I used to work, an individual bought an AR-15, when asked what was he going ddto do with it, his reply, “I’m going deer hunting”. My answer was, “So, if you hit the deer 12 times, what then ? That’s called field butchering”. He had no answer. I have experience with assult weapons: M-16, M-79, Quad-50, 51-AAA, M-60, 5.62 GAT, 30-GAT, and some others. All this was in South East Asia. I know what an assult weapon will do to the human body. Reference my previous question: WHY ?

patcollins – Assult rifle / weapon: See previous paragraph. Yes, some illiterate / misinformed individuals do not know what an assult rifle is.

-- *Arachnoleptic Fit*: The frantic dance performed just after you've accidently walked through a spider web.

View patcollins's profile

patcollins

1004 posts in 1611 days


#25 posted 07-26-2012 01:23 AM

A 30-06 can do some serious damage, especially when equiped with hunting rounds. Fragmentation rounds are not allowed per the Geneva convention because of what they can do to a person, but they are commonly used for hunting.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or even self defense. It was put into the bill of rights to ensure that the people would be able to overthrow a government if they saw fit at a future time.

View Jimbo4's profile

Jimbo4

1172 posts in 1509 days


#26 posted 07-26-2012 01:27 AM

Hey – I’m not trying to be a smart ass, all I’m doing is asking a question as to why would anyone want a weapon that shoots a bzillion bullets at a time. I don’t care if you have one, or two, or 20. Why? I have four weapons – a Ruger 22Mag, a single shot 22 rifle my dad gave to me when I was 13, an 1896 Winchester which is are very dear items, since my dad passed away a number of years ago, and an 8 guage single shotgun my grandfather gave to me. I’ve only fired that thing ONCE, kicked me on my butt ! So, you see, I’m not an anti-gun nut, just asking a question.

-- *Arachnoleptic Fit*: The frantic dance performed just after you've accidently walked through a spider web.

View patcollins's profile

patcollins

1004 posts in 1611 days


#27 posted 07-26-2012 01:36 AM

Nothing was said about a state militia, then a militia could be the boys that lived up the holler. In colonial times the militia was a group of volunteers that came and fought when they wanted to and could leave whenever they wanted to. So there could be the Chipmunk family militia, the blue mountian militia, etc etc.

View patcollins's profile

patcollins

1004 posts in 1611 days


#28 posted 07-26-2012 01:38 AM

rosebud, define what you mean by shoots a bzillion bullets at a time, what gets defined as assault weapons today is just semiautomatic, one pull one bullet.

Why would anyone “need” a 5hp unisaw?

View Sawkerf's profile

Sawkerf

1730 posts in 1815 days


#29 posted 07-26-2012 01:58 AM

Jim-
The simple answer (and the one that drives the nannies among us crazy) is because they want to. As long as they use them responsibly, no additional justification is required. But you answered my question. Absent some sort of intervention, that inert thing on the shelf is harmless in and of itself. Contrary to Chipmunk’s bold faced ranting, the NRA (that I remember) fully supports enforcement of our gun laws.

Bad ammo? Maybe, but I’ve never seen bad ammo cook off on its own. I’ve fired really old ammo (25 – 30 year old headstamps) that would misfire, but that’s it.

Chipmunk -
I think you need to put that militia part in the right context. At that time, there was virtually no standing army and if one were needed the state militias would be called up. (Read up on how Washington got the troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion). For all intents and purposes, every able bodied man was considered to be eligible to join. Since few militias had armories with state owed guns, it was expected that the members would bring their own, personal, weapons – as well as the powder and shot to use them.

There’s also a school of thought that the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the means to overthrow the government that they were founding if it became necessary. After all, hadn’t they just done that themselves?

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

View Jimbo4's profile

Jimbo4

1172 posts in 1509 days


#30 posted 07-26-2012 01:59 AM

Bzillion bullets = figure of speach. Because they “need” it to do their job. An assult weapon is defined as a particular weapon used by the military – fully automatic. True, an assult weapon, which is NOT truly a rifle can be defined as a semi-automatic, which resembles a military weapon. Nobnody “needs” a fully automatic weapon, as defined by the military as an assult weapon. Case in particular: A number of years ago, two idiots in LA had AK-47s, fully automatic, in full body armour, held off the police for hours. Those “rifles” are defined as assult weapons, because they are not semi-automatic or single shot. What are we arguing about – sematics – or legal terms.

Point of fact: An AK-47 will accept .223 ammo. The bullet will rattle down the barrell and, is accurate to 100 ft.

-- *Arachnoleptic Fit*: The frantic dance performed just after you've accidently walked through a spider web.

View patcollins's profile

patcollins

1004 posts in 1611 days


#31 posted 07-26-2012 02:09 AM

Not argueing with you jim, just trying to figure out what you mean. Alot of times people are trying to argue a point that really doesn’t exist. I am a stickler for the facts in a discussion on my side or the other side and not some bull that people believe just because they have heard it so much.

I remember those guys, but really are guys that are going to rob a bank care if their weapons are legal or not?

View Jimbo4's profile

Jimbo4

1172 posts in 1509 days


#32 posted 07-26-2012 02:10 AM

I know what. Why don’t we all change the words “assult weapon” to “weapons of mass destruction” and, create a new legal term to define what we’re talking about ?

-- *Arachnoleptic Fit*: The frantic dance performed just after you've accidently walked through a spider web.

View Jimbo4's profile

Jimbo4

1172 posts in 1509 days


#33 posted 07-26-2012 02:20 AM

Pat – you’re correct about whether they cared if their weapons were legal or not. But, I’m trying to understand the rational of owning a weapon of mass destruction just because the constitution says we can own a weapon. Why is it that most people read “into” the constitution that we can own a weapon of mass destruction, when in that time period a weapon of that sort was for military purposes, i.e., cannons, mortars, blunderbuss, etc. The common person of that time only had a muzzle loader, which was certainly not a WOMD (WMD?).

Think I’m going to sack in. Will continue this tomorrow ? Old bones carried enough around today.

-- *Arachnoleptic Fit*: The frantic dance performed just after you've accidently walked through a spider web.

View Craftsman on the lake's profile

Craftsman on the lake

2419 posts in 2184 days


#34 posted 07-26-2012 02:21 AM

I think the NRA goes a bit to far in fighting for some things that go beyond what people need guns for. But, if as a country we allow it, vote people in who allow it, then it’s what a free country wants. We shouldn’t complain when the results of that happen. I suppose we could call it ‘acceptable losses for the right of those freedoms’.

Not my opinion but it seems to be the opinion of the country.

-- The smell of wood, coffee in the cup, the wife let's me do my thing, the lake is peaceful.

View Sawkerf's profile

Sawkerf

1730 posts in 1815 days


#35 posted 07-26-2012 02:22 AM

Then you need to communicate that reason to the Supreme Court. One of the biggest problems with the whole second amendment argument has been knowing what the founding fathers meant by “militia”. Generations of historians and legal scholars haven’t been able to unambiguously define it and here you’ve had the answer all along.

Thanks for turning off the bold face type. Speaking for myself, I’m much more persuaded by a logical argument than a loud one – which really gets my wife going sometimes. – lol

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

View Sawkerf's profile

Sawkerf

1730 posts in 1815 days


#36 posted 07-26-2012 02:29 AM

Craftsman -
So who should have the power to decide why someone “needs” a gun? IIRC, the NRA is defending the rights of each of us to make that decision for ourselves – and having made that decision accept the personal responsibility that goes with it.

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

View Newage Neanderthal's profile

Newage Neanderthal

190 posts in 1297 days


#37 posted 07-26-2012 03:12 AM

Point of fact: An AK-47 will accept .223 ammo. The bullet will rattle down the barrell and, is accurate to 100 ft.

Ok, I sometimes weigh in, but rarely discuss my background, I am simply doing so now to lay out that I am not some guy with “internet” facts.

I am a USMC vet, a plank holder (ie founding member) of MARSOC, which is the Marine Corps’ SOCOM element. I ran the armory for the Foreign Military Training Unit, and wrote most of the manuals and doctrine used by MARSOC for non-standard weapons systems, including the AK-47.

Saying an AK-47 will fire and be accurate to 100” a .223 round is complete and utter BS.

I have heard this about the soviet 9.3X18 as well. That it will fire our 9mm NATO but not vise versa. Once again, BS.

This comes from the Russian 82mm mortar, which will fire out 81 mm mortar. Trying to include that to any of the others, just simply shows you are uninformed on the topic at hand.

An AK-47 round is 7.62X39, a .223 is 5.56X45. The AK will not even chamber the .223 properly. It is 12mm longer, you can not even close the bolt without excessive force, much less get to fire accurately. You can jam a .223 round in there, pull the trigger a few times, and one of those times might set off the primer. But when you do get it to go off, the round is going to flop out the end of the barrel with a poof of smoke around it. The power burn might hurt someone close, the projectile won’t. It is simply to much room for the projectile to expand and create a seal, letting pressure build

-- www.newageneanderthal.blogspot.com . @NANeanderthal on twitter

View Sawkerf's profile

Sawkerf

1730 posts in 1815 days


#38 posted 07-26-2012 03:30 AM

Ok, so you took a lot of words and references to effctively say that nobody has ever come up with a definitive answer – and the argument rages on.

BTW, your second sentence suggests a bit of bias don’t you think?

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

View Newage Neanderthal's profile

Newage Neanderthal

190 posts in 1297 days


#39 posted 07-26-2012 03:33 AM

Chipmunk,
Keep in mind every SCOUTS has said corporations are people since the 14th amendment.

I however disagree.

-- www.newageneanderthal.blogspot.com . @NANeanderthal on twitter

View ralbuck's profile (online now)

ralbuck

653 posts in 1013 days


#40 posted 07-26-2012 04:24 AM

TOO MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO FORGET!

When Florida LIBERALIZED the gun LAWS crime WENT down!

If you have ever been shot at??? iF ARMED YOU will shoot BACK!

Would have shortened the “incident” a lot! Had you been sitting in that place with your 9 on your belt; would he have managed to shoot that many people???

I don’t usually like Political discussions. This is going to be used by the anti-gun —-pro chaos—- group to foster that agenda! NAZI Germany had no private guns! Look at that result!! Learn something from history!

-- just rjR

View David White's profile

David White

118 posts in 2027 days


#41 posted 07-26-2012 04:42 AM

As an outsider it seems pretty simple – the easier it is for a crazy person to get a gun, the greater the possibility that a crazy person will get a gun and kill someone with it.

On that basis – make it much harder for people to buy guns and ammo and fewer people will die.

-- http://thecraftsmanstudio.com

View David White's profile

David White

118 posts in 2027 days


#42 posted 07-26-2012 04:50 AM

NAZI Germany had no private guns! Look at that result!! Learn something from history!

That has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.

-- http://thecraftsmanstudio.com

View dakremer's profile

dakremer

2492 posts in 1838 days


#43 posted 07-26-2012 04:52 AM

I think we should get rid of forks and steak knives. Those can easily kill someone.

Spoons are ok

-- Hey you dang woodchucks, quit chucking my wood!!!!

View oldnovice's profile

oldnovice

3865 posts in 2114 days


#44 posted 07-26-2012 04:53 AM

I think that David White has the right idea but the issue is, how can it be implemented?

-- "I never met a board I didn't like!"

View David White's profile

David White

118 posts in 2027 days


#45 posted 07-26-2012 05:09 AM

I think we should get rid of forks and steak knives. Those can easily kill someone.

A stupid, trite response – would you rather face a crazy person armed with a steak knife or with a gun?

-- http://thecraftsmanstudio.com

View joebloe's profile

joebloe

157 posts in 1040 days


#46 posted 07-26-2012 05:17 AM

Cars and baseball bats can and have killed people,but I don’t see you raising hell about someone driving to a ball game.

View dakremer's profile

dakremer

2492 posts in 1838 days


#47 posted 07-26-2012 05:28 AM

I wouldn’t want to face a crazy person with either a gun or a knife….which is exactly my point. It’s the crazy person that’s the danger, not the tool (gun or knife…. Or spoon)

I come from a huge family of hunters. Almost everyone in my family owns a gun… No one has killed anyone yet. Stop blaming the guns, blame the poor parenting and/or what ever else causes these crazies to use a (when used correctly and responsibly) harmless tool to kill
Thank you for that. That was easy

-- Hey you dang woodchucks, quit chucking my wood!!!!

View David Kirtley's profile

David Kirtley

1285 posts in 1744 days


#48 posted 07-26-2012 05:30 AM

The attacker in Colorado was clearly out to hurt innocent people and adding the additional charge of using an illegal weapon is ridiculous compared to the gravity of the murders. This was a planned rampage. Without access to a rifle, it could have just as easily been a different weapon. Firearms are not the only way to kill people and many improvised devices could have been just as destructive or more so with simple things taught in high school physics and chemistry classes. It is a social problem and not the mere availability of firearms.

Singling out assault rifles as a class is just ignorant. They are not nearly as powerful as most long arms. They just “look scary.” Assault rifles were developed as a low power and light weight alternative weapon to fill the gap between handguns and long rifles for mostly urban warfare. Even the rate of automatic fire is not that much different than what can be achieved by a semi-automatic weapon with a little practice. Look up bump firing if you are unfamiliar. Magazine capacity is irrelevant when you are looking at an armed and armored attacker against an unarmed crowd. It doesn’t take that long to swap out magazines. Even a single shot weapon can have devastating effects. That is why they have snipers.

The thing that bothers me personally about many of the legal debates such as this is when a minority wants to subvert the process to make up for lack of support for their cause. You do not believe that the public should have weapons? Fine. There is a clear process to change the law. Write up an amendment to to the constitution and get it passed. That is why the provisions for amendment of the constitution exist.

-- Woodworking shouldn't cost a fortune: http://lowbudgetwoodworker.blogspot.com/

View David White's profile

David White

118 posts in 2027 days


#49 posted 07-26-2012 06:05 AM

I wouldn’t want to face a crazy person with either a gun or a knife….which is exactly my point. It’s the crazy person that’s the danger, not the tool (gun or knife…. Or spoon)

So you are unable to see that a crazy person with a gun is more dangerous that a crazy person with a steak knife?

-- http://thecraftsmanstudio.com

View murch's profile

murch

1186 posts in 1371 days


#50 posted 07-26-2012 07:24 AM

In the early 1990s, gun violence reached unprecedented levels. In 1994 the number of Americans killed by firearms peaked with 39,595 deaths. Another 104,390 people suffered non-fatal injuries. While the annual number of gun-related deaths has decreased to approximately 30,000, the loss of life remains a chilling reality across the United States.

Man, that is a jaw-dropper. About 50% of the 30,000 total are suicides (staggering and tragic, as well) but that’s still leaving over 250 Americans per week who are killed by other Americans. You guys just cant stop killing one another. It makes Afghanistan look safe.

-- A family man has photos in his wallet where his money used to be.

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

1 2 3 4 5 next »
216 replies


DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

GardenTenders.com :: gardening showcase