People forget what the internet is like outside of TheBore. Everyone's got a huge cock out there to make us feel like shit. But not here, we're safe here.
0 Members and 17 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: nudemacusers on August 03, 2018, 11:39:59 AMWait those Swedish numbers are for total killings not those by cops. Benjamin!!!!!phew, Sweden redeemedso you're about as likely to get shot by a cop in the US as you are getting shot by your local gang or your recently sacked husband in Sweden?
Wait those Swedish numbers are for total killings not those by cops. Benjamin!!!!!
Quote from: daemon on August 03, 2018, 11:36:41 AMQuote from: jorma on August 03, 2018, 11:29:34 AMit seems obvious to me that he isn't referring to special ammo when he says disabling shotsSo what's a disabling shot. Where do you shoot exactly to disable a person? What are you disabling exactly.. running? Shooting back?Because of course you can disable a knife carrying guy by kneecapping him. You'll probably need a full mag and will cause ricochets on the ground, which are totally safe. As soon as you aim for the torso it's a lottery of soft tissue and bones. If it goes right, you won't touch any vitals and disable him, but worst case scenario you piece the heart and he's gone.Some people think police should use special ammo that can only incapacitate, but very rarely become lethal. The problem with this is that they would be bringing nerf guns to a gunfight. Then someone would say: well just use the correct ammo depending on the situation. Yeah, that won't work. You're asking for the gun to not have a chambered shot, which could be the difference between an innocent person dying or not. There's too many variables to control.I'm lifting this directly from the official swedish police site:Om polisen skjuter mot en person ska de sträva efter att bara för tillfället oskadliggöra personen. Skotten ska i första hand riktas mot benen, men om omständigheterna kräver det får polisen skjuta direkt mot överkroppen – till exempel om den hotfulla personen befinner sig nära i avstånd och angreppet går fort.https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befogenheter/polisens-ratt-att-anvanda-skjutvapen/google translateIf the police are shooting a person, they will strive to just disable the person at the moment. The shots should primarily be directed towards the legs, but if circumstances require, the police can shoot directly to the upper body - for example, if the threatening person is in close proximity and the attack goes fast.
Quote from: jorma on August 03, 2018, 11:29:34 AMit seems obvious to me that he isn't referring to special ammo when he says disabling shotsSo what's a disabling shot. Where do you shoot exactly to disable a person? What are you disabling exactly.. running? Shooting back?Because of course you can disable a knife carrying guy by kneecapping him. You'll probably need a full mag and will cause ricochets on the ground, which are totally safe. As soon as you aim for the torso it's a lottery of soft tissue and bones. If it goes right, you won't touch any vitals and disable him, but worst case scenario you piece the heart and he's gone.Some people think police should use special ammo that can only incapacitate, but very rarely become lethal. The problem with this is that they would be bringing nerf guns to a gunfight. Then someone would say: well just use the correct ammo depending on the situation. Yeah, that won't work. You're asking for the gun to not have a chambered shot, which could be the difference between an innocent person dying or not. There's too many variables to control.
it seems obvious to me that he isn't referring to special ammo when he says disabling shots
So much for socialism. In the sweden the poor working class has to buy guns and murder each other while in the US the goverment shoots you for free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#Swedenfatal shootings per million residents(Image removed from quote.)Sweden: 1996-2006Sweden had ~9 million residents, so ~1 fatal shooting per year. But the margin of error on that low number of total shootings will be so high it actually is basically statistically not different from if it were 0.As posted in that thread, UK police are trained to shoot center mass, they have almost no shootings but according to Wikipedia they're like 50+% fatal.I'm still skeptical that Scandinavian police are shooting at legs. And especially targeting knees.
Quote from: benjipwns on August 03, 2018, 11:49:23 AMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#Swedenfatal shootings per million residents(Image removed from quote.)Sweden: 1996-2006Sweden had ~9 million residents, so ~1 fatal shooting per year. But the margin of error on that low number of total shootings will be so high it actually is basically statistically not different from if it were 0.As posted in that thread, UK police are trained to shoot center mass, they have almost no shootings but according to Wikipedia they're like 50+% fatal.I'm still skeptical that Scandinavian police are shooting at legs. And especially targeting knees.Why are they so happy?
let this all be a lesson! this is why you only shitpost in here! spoiler (click to show/hide) [close]
*deletes 3000 word post about the difference between Italian civic fascism and German race based National Socialism*
Quote from: benjipwns on August 03, 2018, 11:49:23 AMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#Swedenfatal shootings per million residents(Image removed from quote.)Sweden: 1996-2006Sweden had ~9 million residents, so ~1 fatal shooting per year. But the margin of error on that low number of total shootings will be so high it actually is basically statistically not different from if it were 0.As posted in that thread, UK police are trained to shoot center mass, they have almost no shootings but according to Wikipedia they're like 50+% fatal.I'm still skeptical that Scandinavian police are shooting at legs. And especially targeting knees.Need to see Scandinavia knees vs USA knees to verify targetability
Both gaf and ree hate NYT for diametric reasons but neither can stop posting about their leadership.
The sympathy shown for [incels] is disturbing when compared to the sympathy shown to other groups who have problems that aren't self created.
Yep. Compare incels to threads about women, trans people, people of color, etc.
Well, we probably have more incels here than any of the rest. Every incel thread we've had has had creeping crypto-incels in it, trying to convince us that they aren't so bad, and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
It's almost as if women, people of color, trans people, and the like have realized that they aren't welcome on this site and so post less and less until the leave completely.
Let's say the Star Wars prequels came out today. Different cast obviously . Much better cgi but all the story beats and dialogue remain the same. Would it make a difference? I think it might have helped somewhat but I contend that the trash prequels are awful because of much more than their awful cgi.
Notch has 17 bathrooms, how many does Chris Pratt have?
Quote from: jorma on August 03, 2018, 11:43:05 AMQuote from: daemon on August 03, 2018, 11:36:41 AMQuote from: jorma on August 03, 2018, 11:29:34 AMit seems obvious to me that he isn't referring to special ammo when he says disabling shotsSo what's a disabling shot. Where do you shoot exactly to disable a person? What are you disabling exactly.. running? Shooting back?Because of course you can disable a knife carrying guy by kneecapping him. You'll probably need a full mag and will cause ricochets on the ground, which are totally safe. As soon as you aim for the torso it's a lottery of soft tissue and bones. If it goes right, you won't touch any vitals and disable him, but worst case scenario you piece the heart and he's gone.Some people think police should use special ammo that can only incapacitate, but very rarely become lethal. The problem with this is that they would be bringing nerf guns to a gunfight. Then someone would say: well just use the correct ammo depending on the situation. Yeah, that won't work. You're asking for the gun to not have a chambered shot, which could be the difference between an innocent person dying or not. There's too many variables to control.I'm lifting this directly from the official swedish police site:Om polisen skjuter mot en person ska de sträva efter att bara för tillfället oskadliggöra personen. Skotten ska i första hand riktas mot benen, men om omständigheterna kräver det får polisen skjuta direkt mot överkroppen – till exempel om den hotfulla personen befinner sig nära i avstånd och angreppet går fort.https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befogenheter/polisens-ratt-att-anvanda-skjutvapen/google translateIf the police are shooting a person, they will strive to just disable the person at the moment. The shots should primarily be directed towards the legs, but if circumstances require, the police can shoot directly to the upper body - for example, if the threatening person is in close proximity and the attack goes fast.Meaning, if you're shooting someone without a weapon, shoot them on the legs to disable them from either pursuing a victim/officer. But obviously if he can shoot back, disable him completely. Shooting to disable when there's a threat just means shoot until he's on the ground not moving/surrendering. And I find the idea of shooting at a lower angle generally a bad idea, considering bullets can ricochet. You can shoot straight and not hit anyone because you're seeing whats behind, if there's generally people, etc. You cant predict a ricochet that accurately.
I've been here for close to 20 years, basically grew up with GAF. It wasnt just the best gaming forum, it was the best place to debate, discuss, and learn about things that really matter, like why it's a bad idea to shave one's asshole.I was amazed by how many smart and influential people were posting, and would always use things I learned from GAF to impress people in real life. You were able to turn that tiny community into a massive one, and you maintained its quality, that's no mean feat.
Why shouldn’t he/she .
I follow a black cosplayer who sometimes posts about black face in the industry. Something that effects people who don't have white skin and isn't just limited to black people.What other term should this person use when speaking in solidarity with effected people?
Swedish fashion ad
None, because he eats shit like Notch for breakfast.
American fashion(Image removed from quote.)Swedish fashion(Image removed from quote.)
Quote from: benjipwns on August 03, 2018, 12:35:14 PMNotch has 17 bathrooms, how many does Chris Pratt have?None, because he eats shit like Notch for breakfast.
No further discussion to be had. Please go discuss topics elsewhere, and do not derail threads. If you would like to hangout, please do so in the appropriate thread in the Hangouts sections. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Omg, this avatar(Image removed from quote.)https://www.resetera.com/posts/11075845/
Swedish fashion:(Image removed from quote.)
American fashion:(Image removed from quote.)
Do you think in 2063 we'll look back on the life of Chris Pratt and think of him as a serious dramatic actor.
As posted in that thread, UK police are trained to shoot center mass, they have almost no shootings but according to Wikipedia they're like 50+% fatal.
This seems to have become the go to method for a lot of people when they decide to jump into threads that are more political, or controversial.It's happening more, and more often now, and the more ridiculous/controversial the thread, the more people that pop out of the woodwork that use this approach.I've seen numerous users with low posts counts that pop out of nowhere, and always preface their post with comments like, I don't post much on ERA because it's too " ", and then continues on to provide nothing else to the conversation, as if just stating the fact they don't post much on ERA due to some sort of generalization of the forum validates their opinion.Other times some users have been in a back and forth, and when they get pushed into a corner, rather than continuing to discuss the issue, they pull out the ol, this is why ERA is awful, or ERA users are all like this, or this is why ERA is the same as the old place, or ERA users only dogpiles, etc.What do some people actually get out of going with this tactic? Are they stating this for the purpose of trying to solicit change? Do they feel they will get less responses if they make it clear they don't like being here? Do they actually think it adds anything to that specific thread to bring this up? Are they trying to state their views without explicitly labeling themselves as something else?I just don't quite get why we can't just have deep discussions on important topics, without resorting to this kind of tactic for discussions.
I think gaming and etcetera have a different set of people. Many people cross over but lots of people keep quiet on the etcetera side. Besides, gaming is a pretty expensive hobby which requires a lot of money (among countless other things) so it clashes with the more left leaning members that stay in etcetera.
Quote from: Transhuman on August 03, 2018, 01:04:51 PMDo you think in 2063 we'll look back on the life of Chris Pratt and think of him as a serious dramatic actor.Is James Gunn being allowed to finish his work with the third Guardians film or not?
I'm not a fan. AM promotes adultery among other things. Is GAF really supporting such endeavors especially when you consider all that's happened here?
History books 30 years from now will show that Chris Pratt never made a comedy film again as a tribute to his assassinated friend, James Gunn.
Man, that Incel thread... excelsiorcief genuinely is unable to have empathy.