Happy Easter
Three Goblin Art
Sade Olutola
AnasAbdin
hello vonnie
styofa doing anything
todays bird
No title available
trying on a metaphor
RMH
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me

roma★

oozey mess

Product Placement
No title available
Peter Solarz
art blog(derogatory)

Discoholic 🪩
Xuebing Du

No title available
we're not kids anymore.

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Brazil

seen from Ukraine

seen from Singapore

seen from Mexico

seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Uruguay
seen from Ecuador

seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Indonesia

seen from Australia
seen from Australia

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States
@huhuheroin
Happy Easter
Pistol shot recorded at 73,000 frames per second [video]
Heckler & Koch, AR500 Builds Mandalorian Ballistic Armor
Holy shit
RPK-74m and AK-105
Arsenal SLR-106FR 5.56
Remington Defense MSR
“The problem is not the guns!” hate to break it to ya buddy boy but they kind of are… we can’t exactly ban people
Suppose you somehow ban guns and guns are now all illegal.
Then what?
(a) i feel much safer, thank you
(b) the amount of homicide by people with gun licenses would be non-existent! take away the guns, take away the murder
xoxo,
@geometricmist
No, friend. You didn’t say take away guns. You said ban.
There are over 370 MILLION legally owned guns in America. When we factor illegal guns and black markets, that number rises to well over half of a BILLION.
Simply a law banning guns would not make all of those weapons magically just disappear.
So I’ll ask again. Then what?
I didn’t propose banning guns! I just said “We can’t ban people.” While a gun ban would be an option, I believe that at the least there should be limits on how many guns people can own, and there should be limits on the types of guns people can own. xoxo, @geometricmist
First of all, you say guns are the problem and not people. You then also say that we cannot ban people. Let’s not play stupid here. You and I both know what you were implying and the point you wanted to express.
Moving on.
Newsflash. There are already federal and state level restrictions in place limiting who can own guns, how many guns they can own in some areas, and what type of guns can be owned.
So congrats. What you want is already in place across the country.
That’s not everything that I want. America’s true gun problem is the gun suicides, which far outnumber the homicides. With guns being as accessible as they are today, millions of people end their lives. Also, the government can’t prevent guns being used for acts of violence. While I am sure there are responsible gun owners, there is no way to completely confirm the mental stability of all gun buyers. By eliminating the availability of guns, we make it harder for mentally unstable people to harm others. While a gun ban might not be a perfect solution, it is a good initiative. xoxo, @geometricmist
So now do you DO want gun bans? Can you make up your mind and stop moving the goal post? You’re being a bit irrational, which is making me inclined the believe that you’re right about sole people being mentally unstable.
So I will ask a third time now. There are over half of a BILLION guns in America. How you propose that we make them all magically disappear?
Having someone’s best interests in mind does not make you mentally unstable. Your comment was low, insulting, uncivilized, and distracts from the topic at hand. The message I am trying to spread is that guns are in fact the problem.
While the complete eradication of firearms in the United States is impossible, it is only responsible to attempt to put a dent in the over saturation of guns. A national gun buyback program is a very viable option, while a gun ban would be far more aggressive and harder to enforce. Either way, additional action needs to be taken to protect lives.
Me expressing that you seem unstable and irrational had nothing to due with your views on gun control and everything to do with the fact that you could not stick to one topic and continually changed the subject and moved the goal post around when confronted with logical arguments and questions. You were exhibiting unstable and irrational mental behavior.
But I digress.
Both of these measures that you suggest were attempted in Australia, an island country smaller than America with a much smaller gun culture, and even there it failed to reduce murder, suicide, violent crime, gun violence, or even gun ownership.
Multiple reports and studies over the last two decades have backed up this fact time and time again.
Your silly little plan here has already failed in other countries with less guns and a smaller gun culture and would fail miserably here as well. It is a dream and nothing more.
Unlike you claim, I have not moved any “goalpost”. If you recall, my first words were that guns are a problem. Under this umbrella, I have discussed different aspects of guns being a problem.
Those are some interesting claims, considering that they contradict the evidence.
For example, a Harvard study found that “Australia’s firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 percent in the seven years after the gun control law passed”, and that “its firearm suicide rate fell by 57 percent.” (Source) (Source 2)
“According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has actually declined over the last several years.” 1995 - 27.8%, 1996 - 25.3%, 1997 - 24.1%, 1998 - 17.6%, 1999 - 15.2%, 2000 - 14.0%” (Source)
And now, some evidence that supports and verifies my earlier claims.
The correlation is clear. “More guns mean more gun deaths. Period.” (source)
The United States has over three times the amount of gun violence than the next runner up. (Source)
A extremely high firearm homicide rate seen in the graph previous; this graph illustrates the extreme amount of firearms in the United States along with it. (Source)
xoxo, @geometricmist
Oh, this silly little child seriously tried to use Australia and then cited Mother Jones as a valid argument for gun control. A classic anti-gunner mistake.
Okay. *cracks knuckles* Let’s do this then.
Australia:
[this segment brought to you by lee-enfeel]
People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.
The total firearms death rate in 1995 - the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per 100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was 0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from 4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws. This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at 1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1). This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease gun crime.
It should also be noted that around the same time, New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well, and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.
The “australia banned guns and now they’re fine” argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of opportunities, and lack of education.
You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.
[this segment brought to you by cerebralzero]
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[37] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[40]
A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[43]
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[44]
At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia. In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.
All of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost of implementing Australian style gun control in America.
I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big picture of that plan.
Australia had far less guns per person and people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up respecting The 2nd Amendment. The culture of Australia is very different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun ownership and self defense.
Because of this, the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about $500,000,000. You read that correctly, 500 MILLION.
And even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, despite being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.
There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America. If we go by Australia’s numbers ($792.39 per gun), these guns would cost our government $285,261,489,698.89 to buy back. Almost 300 BILLION dollars, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns… Which is a very slim to nothing chance.
Who’s going to pay for that? Anti-gunners? I think not.
So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars AND has already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?
Seems pretty silly.
IMPACT ON SUICIDE RATES:
Suicide is a phenomenon for which at least a very large portion of substitution of method occurs. If a person wants to die and his/her “preferred” means is not available, he/she can quite easily determine another quite satisfactory means. A good thing about means other than guns, when it comes to trying to kill oneself, is that most other means are quieter—so it’s likely your intent won’t be discovered if you are unsuccessful, leaving you free to try again until you are successful. The “success” rate for the average attempt with a gun may be higher than for other means, but a suicidal person can use some of the other means repeatedly until successful.
The gun suicide rate averaged about 3.45/100k from ‘79 to ‘87, then dropped unevenly at about .158/100k (average) per year from ‘87 to ‘96. This (‘97 & ‘98) is where gun controllers would think the suicide rate should drop immediately or start dropping at a higher rate (i.e., higher than .158/100k). Instead, the average drop per year was virtually identical (.156/100k) from '96 to '04.
The truth is that the semi-auto and pump firearms that were the target of the ban/buyback have no more value for suicide than any of the allowed firearms. If one shoots oneself in the head with a rapid fire gun, one does not then take another shot. It takes only one shot to commit suicide. So one should not expect the ban (that hardly reduced the stock of long arms and didn’t reduce the stock of handguns at all) to have had any impact on suicide.
It is also inconceivable that any other part of the new gun restrictions would have a perceptible impact on the gun suicide rate. Attempts to identify people who are likely to try suicide (except for those who have already done so) have been woefully inadequate. And those contemplating suicide are likely to hide weapons rather than surrender them all to their government.
One may wonder (from looking at the graph) if a trend in gun suicide had started from '93 to '96, in which case it could be argued that gun suicide dropped abruptly in '97 and '98, interrupting the trend. It is very possible. The '93-'96 points lie very close to a straight line. Another year or two of data points along the line would have made it quite probably a trend. A trend of only three years cannot be well proven because the possibility of such patterns occurring from chance alone is too great. If '93 to '96 was a trend, the post-'96 trend still appears to be heading towards getting back on the '93 to '96 trend line in a few years. Note too that the values from '01 to '04 look much like a nonlinear trend, largely because of the small departures from the curve.
Unfortunately, we can’t be very certain of conclusions drawn from such short-term trends even if the trends are very smooth. On the other hand, long term trends are not really good bases for detecting a change at a particular point in time if the fact is ignored that there really are many true short-term trends. A long-term trend needs to be stable to be useful. Suicide and crime rate trends result from many things, some consistent over the long term and some only over short terms.
The non-gun suicide rate averaged about 7.859/100k from '79 to '85, then jumped up where it averaged about 10.086/100k from '87 to '94. It increased at a rapid average rate of about .873/100k per year from '93 and '94 to '97, then dropped at a high, consistent rate (.585/100k per year, average) from '98 to '04. Note that the '96 rate was significantly below a trend line through the '93, '94, '95 and '97 points. Remember this when we get into the discussion of assault and robbery rates.
It is noteworthy that the rates for total and non-gun suicides dropped fast and consistently from '98 to '04. There is no way these impacts could relate to firearms. So something else has been actually working and reducing suicide rates. Maybe it was good economy. Maybe Australian governments have actually been doing something worthwhile. Whatever the cause, it had no impact on gun suicide rates, which simply continued to drop at essentially the same rate as between '91 and '97.
At this point you can cram your Australia argument deeply and securely straight up your ass. Moving on.
No shit, people die by guns where more guns are present. People also drown more often in places where there are bodies of water present. What this weak argument ignores is the fact that gun control does absolutely nothing to create a safer society.
Gun Control in Other Countries:
People have a habit of making the false assumption that stricter gun control results in lower violent crime and/or lower gun violence. This assumption is simply not true.
Gun Related Deaths per 100,000
United States - 10.64
Countries With Strict Gun Control:
Mexico - 11.17
Argentina - 10.5
Brazil - 19.03
Colombia - 28.14
El Salvador - 46.85
Guatemala - 36.38
Honduras - 64.8
Jamaica - 39.74
South Africa - 21.51
Swaziland - 37.16
Venezuela - 50.90
Yep. Nothing but rainbows and butterfly kisses in all of those countries. Nothing bad every happens in those countries since they have strict gun control.
And while we’re throwing out graphs, charts, and reports, here’s some more vital information and studies that I’m sure you won’t want to talk about.
Banning guns would not reduce murder and suicide
No rise in mass shootings
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Guns are excellent self defense tools
Mexico’s 90% Gun Supply come from the USA Myth
DOJ Study Fails to Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked
64% of gun control advocates believe the incorrect assumption that gun crime has gone up
53% of Americans oppose stricter gun laws
64% of Americans believe it would be bad if only the government had guns
62% of Americans believe that the government wouldn’t fairly enforce gun laws
74% of Americans believe that the Constitution allows them to own a gun.
Police feel safer with an armed public, oppose gun control
Majority of criminals fear and avoid house and people they believe to be armed, fear armed civilians more than the police
Anti gunners wishing harm and death on gun owners part 1
Anti gunners wishing harm and death on gun owners part 2
No correlation between homicide and gun ownership rates for OECD countries
No correlation between suicide and gun ownership rates for OECD countries
No correlation between homicide and gun ownership rates between states in the USA
No correlation between household gun ownership, income, and poverty between the states in the USA
Anti gunners wishing harm and death on gun owners part 3
South American gun control little to no effect on major crimes, no correlation to crime rates
South American gun ownership and crime rates not linked, no correlation
Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:
Death by gun, suicide excluded: 0.0032%
Death by gun, suicide included: 0.0095%
Death in a mass shooting alone: 0.000032%
Injury by gun, no death: 0.024%
Death of injury by gun including suicide: 0.033%
Gun deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little change to the average numbers used above.
Guns compared to other ways you can die:
Unintentional fall deaths:
Number of deaths: 26,009
Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths:
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
Unintentional poisoning deaths:
Number of deaths: 33,041
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
All poisoning deaths:
Number of deaths: 42,917
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9
All Drug poisoning deaths:
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)
All firearm deaths (suicide included):
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3
All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):
Number of deaths: 12,664
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
Firearm deaths broken down completely:
3.6 for homicide 6.3 for suicide 0.30 for unintentional 0.10 undetermined
10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns but are not even protected by the constitution and isnt a right, and are less regulated than guns!
[Sources are FBI and CDC]
Even more valuable resources if you or someone remains still unconvinced
If this all is still somehow not enough to convince you or someone you know that guns are fine and not as bad as everyone makes out to be, then I honestly doubt the following will do it but I will still post for anyone interested
Google Earth map showing locations of self defense by gun
List of self defense stories, sort by state or gun
Massive collection of sourced information pertaining to firearm laws, myths, and statistics including:
Gun Shows
Assault Weapons
Sniping Rifles – Sniper Rifles
Handguns For Women Handgun Sales
Violence and Violent Crime
2nd Amendment
“Pocket Rockets” and “Saturday Night Specials”
Concealed Carry and Concealed Weapons Permits
Licensing and Registration
Firearm Deaths (Homicide, Accidents)
Social Costs of Guns
Children and Guns
Automatic Weapons
50 Caliber Rifles
Microstamping
Ballistic Fingerprinting
Assault Weapons Ban
Crime Gun Traces
International Gun Ownership and Crime
Gun Dealers
Gun Control Statistics
Deadly Force Encounters
Guns, Crime, Criminology and Crime Prevention (Self Defense)
Firearm Availability
Guns and Police (Law Enforcement/LEO)
So…
TL;DR - GET DUNKED ON.
@snow-hog Can we get a nuke?
Fuckin destroyed.
The Evil Dead trilogy is the strangest film series like
The Evil Dead: guy and friends go to cabin in the woods and are terrorized by demons
Evil Dead II: guy and girlfriend and some other folk go to cabin in the woods and are terrorized by demons. is it a sequel? is it a remake? who knows
Army of Darkness: guy goes to cabin in the woo- hahahaha just kidding motherfucker we in the 14th century and it's time to fight the skeleton war
HEY BENI
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU’RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE RIVER!
HEY O’CONNELL
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE I’VE GOT ALL THE HORSES!
Colt OHWS
A very rare prototype weapon that competed against the H&K Mark 23 in the USSOCOM’s Offensive Handgun Weapons System program. You can see on the left hand side where a lot of the controls are located; the ambidextrous safety, slide stop, oversize mag release and a decocker. It uses a rotating barrel so it required a unique if not cumbersome way to attach a suppressor which was a requirement for the OHWS program. Supposedly only 30 of these pistols were ever produced in various stages of completion due to the fact they were a trial gun. You can learn more about from a very informative video by Forgotten Weapons on Youtube. (GRH)
Source
Turkish Modified Winchester 1866 from the Russo Turkish War
In 1877 the Russians invaded the Ottoman Empire in hopes of regaining territory lost in the Balkans during the Crimean War. The Russian Empire sent an army of 300,000 troops plus tens of thousands Romanian and Bulgarian allies, the Turks had an army of less than 200,000.
The Turks however had a little surprise in store. The Ottoman Army was armed with the Winchester 1866. The Model 1866 was a lever action repeating rifle that was made in the US and was a descendent of the famed Henry Repeating Rifle. Chambered in .44 rimfire, the Winchester lacked the range of most military single shot rifles, but had a 15 round tubular magazine allowing much greater firepower.
The picture above is an example of a Winchester that the Turks modified for even greater firepower. The magazine and barrel was often extended to 20 or even 30 rounds and the rifle may be mounted on a bipod or tripod. Due to excessive heat buildup a water sleeve is added to allow better cooling.
At long ranges the Turks would engage with large caliber single shot rifles, but when the Russians would close in, they would switch off and fire their Winchesters. The Russians, who were armed with single shot KRNKA and Berdan Rifles (also made in US), were cut to ribbons. The Russian Army and allies were suffer high casualties throughout the war.
The Russo-Turkish war would end in a truce in 1878 after western powers intervened. Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro would be recognized as independent nations. While Russia technically won, capturing significant territories in the region, it was forced to return those territories to the Turks by France and Britain. Despite such a military disaster, Russia would continue to use their single shot rifle until adopting the Mosin Nagant around the turn of the century. The rest of the world would reconsider the role of firepower on the battlefield.
This is still the most genius repurposing of a firearm yet, it’s like a forerunner to a GPMG or something.
Definitely the most interesting thing Ive read today.
Tanfoglio Thor
Locked breech single shot pistol made in Italy and imported into the U.S by EAA. It uses 1911 style controls but not the exact frame. They are available in a large number of rifle calibers; .223 Remington, .270 Winchester, .30-06, .300 Win Mag, .308 Winchester, .45-70 Govt and even .500 S&W. They are a bit difficult to find and they might not even be imported any more. (GRH)
They are no longer imported and haven’t been for sometime. I plan on tracking one of these down eventually. They were popular with .500 S&W reloaders because they can handle very hot loads.