President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Probably. I've seen a bump stock reported (and pictures which may or may not actually be of his weapon), which would make a weapon fire rapidly emulating full auto without making actual illegal modifications to the gun's action. That said, I have yet to see definitive reports on what he had and used. They keep talking about an AK-47 on a stand, which I assume means that it had a bipod attached, but details are still in short supply. For sure he had a number of semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines and the sound on the video is probably the M-4 with a bump stock and a 60 round plus magazine.

 

Obama had better jump-shot technique.

 

So how many were injured by a semi automatic weapon rejiggered to accurately simulate the bullet rate of a fully automatic weapon, and how many were injured by the stampede of people trying to escape the bullets of the semi automatic weapon rejiggered to accurately simulate the bullet rate of a fully automatic weapon?

 

And really, what the fuck does it matter? If there’s no fire from weapons converted for automatic use, there is no goddamn stampede in which people get hurt.

Therefore: The presence of the gunfire did in fact cause the injuries to occur. Direct hit, shrapnel, stampede; still injured.

In a purely journalistic sense, yes, the details are important. If the injured were taken to safety on an ATV, I would not want to read that the injured were taken to safety on a golf cart. But for the purposes of this discussion — the point of which is the need to rethink our country’s stance on guns — that particular detail is not germane and is an attempt to deflect.

 

In before "corpsemen!"

 

I'm thinking the only uniform Trump recognizes are the doormen at his hotels.

 

Did I make a false claim here? I didn't put a number on those injured in the stampede vs. those hit by gunfire. I'm not sure the officials have put such a number out.

All I've said is that not every person injured was shot. That's a correct statement.

It's really an odd response to being wrong in the previous argument, to choose to fight another losing argument with me.

 

Oh for fuck's sake - I don't know - we were talking about it at work - I asked if you had a number - this I wrote, "Gimme a number". How is that a fight?

 

This won't hurt him. His constituency isn't into basketball too much.

For some reason. Can't put my finger on it. It's a real mystery.

 

BBC languages editor pointed out earlier today that the definition of terrorism is -- "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

It's from the Oxford dictionary, so what the fuck do they know...