4
GRETAWAKENINGM 4 points ago +4 / -0

Forgot about that post. Almost every mass shooter in the past 2 decades has a psychiatrist. For those that don't know, remember that psychiatrists were used during the MK-ULTRA programme in order to influence people into committing acts against their will and sometimes without their knowledge. Think about how a manipulator controls people into doing acts they wouldn't normally do themselves. These psychiatrists, groom mentally ill adults, teenagers and kids into doing their bidding.

2
GRETAWAKENINGM 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think we need to be careful here. A group or certain members in the FBI may have. I don't think every agent is a crook. Nevertheless, the amount of corruption is unfathomable. It does need to be destroyed. Hopefully the next administration will see to it

7
GRETAWAKENINGM 7 points ago +7 / -0

Maybe that's their intention. Or maybe to make the day of independence one to be feared. I think they underestimate the willpower of the American people

3
GRETAWAKENINGM 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hmmm... That is strange. Idk why they need to claim credit when they could just be honest about it and say it was someone else's that they thought should be shared. Anyways. It's a very petty thing to do

8
GRETAWAKENINGM 8 points ago +8 / -0

Did they say it was their own or are they just sharing the information? Just because appropriate attribution isn't provided, doesn't equate to "theft". Remember, we're all in this together. Whatever we need to do to share the information

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

I noticed. Could of been dropped by accident when getting one. They do come in bundles

17
GRETAWAKENINGM 17 points ago +17 / -0

That's a pad. Actually useful for a gunshot if you need it plugged up quick. Someone was improvising. Little tip. Keep the red sticky fluid inside the body

5
GRETAWAKENINGM 5 points ago +5 / -0

I watched it. Was a brill series. Found it weird they all had Irish accents. But then again, it could of been a common thing? A lot of historical inaccuracies but they also got a lot right

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

Aeronautical engineer? Explains the big fuss over eye protection. Pilots bring the aircraft to a low altitude and slowly depressurise the cabin to allow the doors to open in an emergency. Which is what they do over the sea and is why people are given life jackets. They would give parachutes, but it's not cost efficient. You're engaging in an arrogant stick up your arse mentality. And fucking hell, now you're glasses came from super ballistic glasses to needing another pair of safety glasses to be worn over them. The points I raised you refused to address because you have magical glasses and don't need safety glasses, oh wait.. they don't work. And not wearing what many people don't wear when shooting is now me gambling with my life? I just gave you several examples that you didn't even address. How many accidents can you list of the slide retracting off the frame and into the face? The only thing it will protect from is debris and ricochets. Which is more common than a freak malfunction. Most malfunctions are to do with the ammunition, which I would of agreed with you. But you resorted to petty insults and acted like a child so I thought I'd entertain this by making my hypothetical points and arguments of personal safety. They aren't needed. Are they safer? Yes. But they are not required and will likely not save your life unless you're being irresponsible to begin with

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hold up. First off, life jackets are provided to you in an aircraft. But it's going to save you from drowning, but a parachute won't save you from falling? Nah... The only reason is cost and if the pilot is able to get low enough to allow a crash in the water. I believe I said "extremely rare" and you should specify who you quote when you are making allegations. Glasses count as safety specs? Are you fucking kidding me? The only reason firearms instructor allow glasses is for getting a better shot. Because god forbid the slide coming back, you now have glass shards tearing the inside of your eye. But, it's extremely unlikely and doesn't warrant safety specs unless you like to throw your firearm everywhere and neglect the fuck out of it. You walk into an industrial site with safety specs required and say "My normal spectacles qualify as safety glasses". You'd have the piss ripped out of you for years and told to get the appropriate PPE or fuck off! You can lose an eye any day of your life and that doesn't warrant the need for safety specs. Only when the circumstances seem reactively possible. I'm not going to be wearing sunglasses every time it's sunny in case I get damage. I'm not going to put eyedrops everyday in case I might of had it contaminated. I'm certainly not going to wear some for shooting unless a range asks me to do so. It's like saying I should have a vaccine on the off chance that covid could kill me as other people have died from it. It doesn't make sense. Let's look at the statistics. 492 people unintentionally die by gun in an average year in the US. Over 70% die by accidental discharge from children. And looking by some of the stupid shit I have seen from adults in America, I think it's safe to assume that the rest would be 30%. Leaving a total of nobody dying a in the last year from a slide going through their head because 1. Slides are designed to be disassembled by moving them forward. 2. Slides will not gain enough power to lodge itself in someone's head (it would hurt). A slide/bolt's only job is to expend the casing and to load a new round in the chamber. You could squeeze the slide and it would do nothing 3. There is no evidence that you have provided to suggest an injury like the one you have described has happened to anyone.

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

They still give you life jackets? How likely is that to save your life from an aircraft? I'd rather have a parachute than a lifejacket. I wear a seatbelt as 1. car accidents are common and 2. the law requires me to. I don't wear a life jacket on a boat unless something warrants me to wear one. Do you wear a one on a cruise? No. Because the chances of something happening that endangers your life is rare. I don't have a fire extinguisher at home. I'm not saying "Nothing bad has happened to me yet. And never will." You're assuming that's what I'm saying without actually reading my fucking point. People are responsible for their own safety. I don't want to be stuck paranoid about extremely rare circumstances on the basis that it might happen. If it does, so be it. I live in a country where health and safety is shoved down people's throats, and yet they need to put a sticker to warn people of the dangers of folk drinking battery fluid. I know a health and safety guy who changed all the plugs in his house to a plastic case rather than a rubber case because of a plug accident he had observed. Was still a pretty rare occurrence. I seen injuries of people slipping in a bathroom and impaling their head on their door handle. I'm not unscrewing my door handles because of it. There's signs here to tell about a hole in the ground when people could just look where their walking. So this idea that you need to be safe against all possibilities is making more idiots and spreading paranoia

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

But a life jacket over a parachute? I don't think it's foolish to go without safety specs. I think if you are shooting as per hunting or combat training, need to do so without the specs. (been on a piss up so sorry about the short reply lol)

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

If it's in a maneuvering state. It's still more possible than it being low over water, yet they give you a life jacket. More opportunities to put on a parachute and survive than a lifejacket and survive. The real reason they do it is to cut costs. A casing although it may burn. It will not cause disfigurement. Although I did have one land on my leg and burn the fuck out of it. The specific variants of the Barretta M9 had manufacturing faults when it came to the slide coming off. It's still pretty rare. People should study their firearms before using them and take the appropriate PPE for that firearm. The majority of firearms are robust and reliable. I think specs and ear defenders should be the shooter's choice on whether they want to go deaf over time from excessive sound exposure, or have protection from an accident that is considerably rare. I know that I can't shoot wearing safety specs. Maybe just me or not enough training, but I was trained without and don't see the need. I will say, it would of been handy the first time shooting a semi automatic when I put my eye too close to the rear sight lol

by panamax
1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

I do believe more people took the vaccine, but they are still resentful over what happened to them. Still don't think 90% took it. I think the figure is closer to 60% in the UK. In the US, I think that figure would be more like 55%. And I think the majority of those vaccinated are at least in a stage where they know their being lied to and manipulated. I think a good number just don't care

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hold up. So, if something wrong happens with the plane. A parachute would not be of aid? For real? So I shouldn't have a parachute because it's of no aid from heights... But safety specs when shooting is going to save my eyes?

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well. I'd be asking for a parachute the next time you take flight instead of a life jacket if that's your logic

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›