The truth !

[A5BLASTER]

You're welcome. What I find interesting (and curious) about photos like these is that the rifles are not loaded.

Lmao they look loaded to me lmao.

[LR1955]

Here's my recommendation: Let's take a lesson from Israel.

Every person who can lawfully do so, open carry their AR15.

Every one. Every day. Every where.

Stan:

I doubt those are the individual's carbines. More likely the IDF's carbines and given the pictures have not been photo shopped, could well be reservists on call. All the carbines are the same, all have the same wear patterns you usually find only from military use, all the magazines have the same attachment and wear marks. All the slings are the same design. Either photo shopped or reservists.

LR55

[Double Naught Spy]

Right, those aren't your ordinary citizens. Those are soldiers. IDF are required to carry their guns with them off duty.
https://themedialine.org/news/israeli-ar...-off-duty/
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pre...-1.5408019

[grayfox]

root causes..... let's close down hollywood and the (leftist) actors who glamorize violence, and the "citizen" actor/role who springs into action to save the day and save the world, guns blazing... like liam neeson, deniro, etc etc. esp those who preach as though holier than thou.
after all, the pen is mightier than the sword! so take away their "pens" and the swords will go back to peace.
o wait!!! that takes those guys off center stage! o well, we can sacrifice their speech rights for the greater good!!

[LR1955]

Right, those aren't your ordinary citizens. Those are soldiers. IDF are required to carry their guns with them off duty.
https://themedialine.org/news/israeli-ar...-off-duty/
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pre...-1.5408019

DNS:

The 'Green Tape' is also an indicator.

LR55

[stanc]

I doubt those are the individual's carbines. More likely the IDF's carbines...

Right, those aren't your ordinary citizens. Those are soldiers. IDF are required to carry their guns with them off duty.

Yes, I know. Apparently I wasn't clear. I didn't mean we should copy what the Israelis (who reportedly have very restrictive laws on the private ownership of firearms!) do. Requiring off-duty military personnel to be armed at all times is almost certainly a non-starter in this country, anyway. And even if it could be implemented here, it would be an extension of the idea that only the government should be armed in order to protect the civilian populace.

I meant that we expand upon the Israeli practice, by having widespread carry of assault rifles by civilians, as a way to possibly deter mass shootings and, if necessary, to be able to more effectively respond to shootings that do occur.

[stanc]

root causes..... let's close down hollywood and the (leftist) actors who glamorize violence...

So, you're not opposed to right wing actors who glamorize violence?

As if Hollywood movies cause mass shootings...

[stanc]

Lmao they look loaded to me lmao.

:confused: In two of the photos I posted, there is clearly no magazine in the weapons.
And the rifles in the other two pics have a magazine holder in their mag wells.

[grayfox]

So, you're not opposed to right wing actors who glamorize violence?

As if Hollywood movies cause mass shootings...

Might be willing to license them to do so.... LOL!

It makes just as much sense to say they cause mass shootings by glamorizing them and making them seem "normal", maybe more true than we know. After all it is the speech that can move you to action. I mostly wonder how they feel if someone advocates that they surrender some of their government-given rights for the good of the rest of us.

[grayfox]

I believe it was Zappa who said "We know what kind of music will make you tap your foot. Now we want to find out what kind will make you throw a brick..." Speech motivates.

[HickLife]

I've always thought it was interesting that people in Hollywood will preach to you about how bad guns are and then the same day star in a movie where they are shooting everyone in sight. If you are so against something why do you use them in movies? They’re only in it for the money, and it shows it since they are willing to sell their morals. If they really thought guns were that bad they would refuse to be in a movie that had them

[A5BLASTER]

:confused: In two of the photos I posted, there is clearly no magazine in the weapons.
And the rifles in the other two pics have a magazine holder in their mag wells.

Lmao. No stanc I wasn't talking about the rifles being loaded, more their blue jeans looked loaded lmao.

[stanc]

I've always thought it was interesting that people in Hollywood will preach to you about how bad guns are and then the same day star in a movie where they are shooting everyone in sight. If you are so against something why do you use them in movies? They?re only in it for the money, and it shows it since they are willing to sell their morals. If they really thought guns were that bad they would refuse to be in a movie that had them

I've always thought it was interesting that gun people will preach to you about how immoral and hypocritical folks in Hollywood are, but will watch and enjoy those movies where the star is shooting everyone in sight.

[grayfox]

I've always thought it was interesting that gun people will preach to you about how immoral and hypocritical folks in Hollywood are, but will watch and enjoy those movies where the star is shooting everyone in sight.

I have no specific problem with those movies, nor do I have a problem with the 2A. I do have a problem with those who are hypocritical in the movies. Think about it, they do not wish to be associated with conservatives but have no problem associating with guns, FOR THE MONEY (as HickLife said). 'Course they all send their kids to schools guarded by guns and have armed security guards for themselves... Because they are exempt you see.
Guns, by the way, according to Joe Bidey today, who wants to ban all "guns with magazines that hold multiple bullets." For those who live in Rio Linda, that means everything except for single-shot guns. This exposes the ultra-leftist agenda.

Besides, libs have already started to talk about taking away our freedoms, so why not defend our 2A by advocating they give up their 1A freedom instead. They should be willing to allow reasonable, common sense restrictions on their speech rights. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword, so ban their pens first!!! Here's an idea: Anyone making such a movie or speech, anyone acting in such a movie, or advertising for such a movie or making money off of such a movie, would be guilty of a hate crime: 15-25 in prison for that and seizure of all their wealth under a DEA-like provision. Maybe they should have to defend against advocacy of this. Best defense is a good offense.

In a real Nazi-world (which btw those National Socialists were the darlings of the Democrats in 1920's-30's and forefathers of nationalized socialists today) freedom of speech, RKBA, association, religion, go on down the list... all of those would be verboten by the Socialists.

[grayfox]

Ooops, what was I thinking? I have stopped watching those hypocrites' movies... so I do have a problem with them after all.
They are simply off my watch-list.

[stanc]

...libs have already started to talk about taking away our freedoms, so why not defend our 2A by advocating they give up their 1A freedom instead. They should be willing to allow reasonable, common sense restrictions on their speech rights. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword, so ban their pens first!!! Here's an idea: Anyone making such a movie or speech, anyone acting in such a movie, or advertising for such a movie or making money off of such a movie, would be guilty of a hate crime: 15-25 in prison for that and seizure of all their wealth under a DEA-like provision. Maybe they should have to defend against advocacy of this. Best defense is a good offense.

Hey, if you think you can get any traction with this idea, go for it. You won't find a better time than now.

[Bayouhunter1960]

Reading the argument that there is no connection linking violent video games to mass shootings seems to be a hasty assumption to me. I have three grandchildren under my roof that I’m raising so I have a bit of worry that the study is premature. I’m a few months away from 60yrs old and up until the last decade Ive never seen anything else take up so much of our youths time as video games. I see a real potential for antisocial behavior mainly due to the time spent in video games without actually learning how to interact with other children or adults.
Today a lot of them will spend every waking moment playing some type of game if not limited by an adult. Include this past time with the drugs the children are given to improve some type of perceived behavior issue, or too hyper to pay attention in class or some other behavior issue usually recommended from a school teacher seems to be a formula for dysfunctional adult that will not be able to handle life’s challenges.

[stanc]

Reading the argument that there is no connection linking violent video games to mass shootings seems to be a hasty assumption to me.

It's not an assumption. From the article:

...only last year the Trump administration convened a School Safety Commission which studied this issue, among many others. I myself testified, and the commission ultimately did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to link games and media to criminal violence.

Long-term studies of youth consistently find that violent games are not a risk factor for youth violence anywhere from one to eight years later. And no less than the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2011 that scientific studies had failed to link violent games to serious aggression in kids.

[stanc]

Reading the argument that there is no connection linking violent video games to mass shootings seems to be a hasty assumption to me.

The "argument" is neither hasty nor an assumption. From the article:

...only last year the Trump administration convened a School Safety Commission which studied this issue, among many others. I myself testified, and the commission ultimately did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to link games and media to criminal violence.

Long-term studies of youth consistently find that violent games are not a risk factor for youth violence anywhere from one to eight years later. And no less than the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2011 that scientific studies had failed to link violent games to serious aggression in kids.

[Double Naught Spy]

After reading about said connections to video games, the only way that video games would seem to actually show a correlation/causation to violence is if the person lived in a place with no exposure to violence other than the games. As noted in what I read, if the shooter is younger, then the influence of video games is often attributed as being a factor, but if the shooter is older, as in the Vegas shooter, video games are not attributed as being a factor. In other words, there is a lot of presumption going into a correlation between video games and shootings that seems to be a presumption of convenience.

While it is easy to find correlations (e.g., many shooters played video games), that is not to say that correlations equate with causations.

This guy has put together some really interesting data on spurious correlations. It is amazing what things can be correlated that have no relationship to one another at all, yet are strongly correlated. For example, there is a 99.79% correlation between US spending on science, space, and technology with suicides by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation.
https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

There is a 99.26% correlation between the divorce rate in the state of Maine and the US per capita consumption of margarine.