TMF

[quote name="JPS" post="1126399" timestamp="1395161089"] And honestly, I really doubt that 'Tons of grown men' like My Little Pony....[/quote] They're called Bronies. It's creepy. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1126385" timestamp="1395159512"]:wave:I ain't skurred. I live watching My Little Pony : Friendship Is Magic with my little girl. It is a great show that is full of a lot of good lessons. I'd go as far as to say that some folks here would be well served by watching and learning from it.[/quote] I have a daughter and read the My Little Pony books to her. I've also been known to be decorated with Sofia the First stickers and sing the song from Frozen to her when we FaceTime, and I'm not afraid of being made fun of by anyone who sees that. But I'm not a 9 year old. Anyone who doesn't try to empathize with the world a 9 year old boy must brave as he receives his position in the pecking order of a barely evolved troop of chimpanzees is allowing their own personal issues with societal norms and gender roles get in the way of common sense. Perhaps we'll live in a society soon where little boys can act like little girls and not be made fun of and be picked on by their peers, but until then it is doing great harm to your kid to use them as a social experiment to prove how progressive a parent you are. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Capbyrd" post="1126380" timestamp="1395158757"] 3. And most importantly...WHO CARES that he likes MLP. Tons of grown men do. All you dad's that want your little boys to grow up and be manly men...do y'all get upset when a girl is a bit of tomboy? Its a double standard and really only exists because you are afraid that your son might have the gay.[/quote] I think you're completely missing the point of everyone who has posted if you think that's what this is about. This is you projecting your preconceived notions. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  Because his was defensive.  Point I was making is that I don't know what scenario I'll find myself in.  I like to make sure that I'm diversified enough to handle most situations without denying the most likely threat.  Doesn't hurt anything to toss a slug in there a few rounds down.  If I'm cycling through several rounds out of a shotgun in and SD scenario, then things have already gotten into that sooper dooper unlikely situation that only one in a million might get into.  Plus, I have the ability to quickly shuck a couple rounds out if I need to use a slug.  Probably won't need that in a house SD situation, but like I said, how do I know that it will shake out like that?

  Yep, and if you really want to look at genetically altered plants, look at the history of wine grapes.  Just a few hundred years ago they had a near wipeout of crop which required them to splice in grape vines from the new world into the old world vines.  Not much different than the way they would do it now, except for the way they did it was less precise and with mixed results. 

  The media wasn't calculating max range of the aircraft, but rather max range of this flight with the amount of fuel they had on board.  Of course, what they were estimating was that it would be traveling at 30,000 ft.  If that isn't the case then the range they estimated is greatly reduced. 

  No, it shouldn't be up to the school.  But, I'm going to try and empathize with school officials here, as I can imagine working in that school and seeing this poor kid showing up in this backpack and being the center of ridicule... geez, I can't imagine how tough that would be to watch.  I bet if the mom had to watch it she would learn a lesson on how things are versus the way they should be.    But back to empathizing with school officials.  If I were a teacher there I wouldn't take it upon myself to tell a parent what kind of backpack they can send the kid to school in.  I would, instead, call this kid's mom and try to arrange a parent/teacher conference to explain the reality of a 9 year old's world.  Parents, I think, forget what it was like at that age.  Teachers don't see everything, and even if they did, being the social outcast kid with no friends is just as bad as being tormented.  9 years old is the start of some really tough, socially awkward years, and starting that off with something that might follow him all the way through those years is doing some real damage to that kid.   Like I said, to quote Sergeant Barnes, "there's the way things are, and the way they oughta be." 

Yes, my BS meter starts going off when it detects emotion, rhetoric, doomsday claims without citing studies, conspiracy theory pop up ads, the word "homeopathic", referencing known activist organizations with an agenda against the very thing they are "objectively" reporting on... stuff like that.   I went down a rabbit hole the other day off of an article that referenced very "official" sounding groups who seemed to be authorities on the subject, only to research those groups to find out they are the quacks of their industry and house the same lunatics who claim you shouldn't vaccinate your kids and that polio never existed.   Now, to reference real stuff, I was just reading an article regarding GM corn which was designed to resist root worms, and since the industry didn't properly police itself (maybe due to profits) and the EPA didn't regulate it to the extent they should have (either due to lobbying or because they didn't want to piss off the farmers) there are now root worms that are resistant to the GM corn and we may have some real problems moving forward in regard to both crops being compromised and a requirement to use more insecticides, which was the primary reason for pushing the GM corn in the first place... to avoid using so many insecticides.   http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/   There are real facts in there, and it is obviously one-sided since it did not take comments from the EPA, AG industry reps or the GM corn industry reps.  But still, it isn't an emotionally based article.  These are the things that I can digest.  I can't digest emotion and take it seriously.

I get why this is silly, to make a rule that a kid can't carry a certain backpack because it makes him a target, but seriously; it does.  Where is the child's father on this?  I get that the kid's mommy doesn't understand the heartless nature of little boys, but the kid's dad should.  Of course other kids are going to pick on him, that is just reality.  I think this kid is in for a rough childhood if his parents are sending him out with "punch me/kick me" signs on.

  Well that is good for all them.  I've actually been in gunfights before where I was close enough to spit on the bad guy.  I'll continue to carry as I carry, because I know that I won't know for sure what situations I'll face, so I'll try to remain as flexible as I reasonably can while still addressing the most likely scenario.

  I google this stuff all the time.  Then I google the organizations who are referenced in these claims.  Referencing an activist organization in an activist article on an activist website does not equal reliable data.  Also, I keep seeing people say that there are "studies" and "numbers say" yet there is never any references to that effect.  Just people referencing what activist websites have offhandedly said.  Sorry, I'm not just going to take your word or anyone else's word for it when there are claims about things that can be studied and recorded as tangible data.    You can't say things like "colon cancer is more prevelent here than in other countries, therefore, GMOs".  That isn't science.  You need to have a causal link.  There are a lot of things we have in our country that they don't have in other countries.  First off, we're all fat as F###.  We are the fattest people on the planet, and have real diseases (that have an actual studied, recorded and widely published causal link).  Until there are REAL studies and REAL causal links identified, just mentioning how we're different than other countries is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.  And anecdotal evidence can be dismissed with anecdotal evidence, just like assertions without proof can be refuted by assertions without proof.   I don't doubt that the lobbying groups for these GMO companies do their share to sway gov policies, but that isn't proof that the items they produce are evil.  Sorry, that's not evidence.  To use that as a way to confirm the veracity of your assertions is like telling someone to disprove a negative.  I could just as easily say that there is a unicorn in the basement of the White House, but the government is keeping it a secret and won't allow me access, which proves that there is a unicorn there.

  My first three shots are gonna miss?  Okay, could you please tell me where you get that data from.  Let me go back to the SD shoot I was referencing my previous post.  My uncle fired exactly three rounds from his Taurus 92 series knockoff; all rounds struck the bad guy in areas vital enough to stop the attack.  I'm not sure where you go from my alternating of ammo to an assailant in body armor, but that's not where I was going with that.  The idea was that if there was an issue of penetration the FMJs would solve it, or at least not hurt the situation.  FMJs will still hurt people.

  Very interesting.  I wonder why this theory isn't getting airtime on the talking head stations.  Guess it isn't sexy like hijacking and piracy theories.

  So it's safe to say that if they lowered their altitude to avoid radar they significantly decreased their range... almost by half if the numbers for a 777 are near the same as a 737, right?   Now we're back to their range not being nearly as far as suggested in the media, and if you cut it back by half they never would have made it to the Indian coast, let alone any of the Stans, if they were flying low.  So they would have either crashed in the Indian Ocean after grossly miscalculating their fuel, or they would have had to land somewhere in SE Asia.

  Considering the most common problem associated with Americans and the food they consume is related to quantity, I don't lose much sleep over topics like this.  Maybe it's the fact that in countries where they don't have evil things like GMOs and an overabundance of food, they tend to die long before they get a chance to develop cancer and kids born with deformities aren't likely to make it to their mother's breast, let alone adulthood.

I've been reading up on this lately trying to make sense of the emotional reaction of folks who oppose this sort of thing.  I see a lot of people trying to link stuff like this to increase in diseases or "toxins" but no proof.  Just anectdotal stories and no evidence, sprinkled in with emotional outcries.  I try to be reasonable and logical when deciding how I feel about certain controversial issues, but I don't see this any different than people who get emotional about global warming and use BS "facts" to prove something that they don't have real facts to back up.   This sounds to me like people arguing about how flouride in the water turns our kids into communists.  Not that I'm not immediately prepared to accept that if there are facts to support it, but there need to be facts, not emotion.  All the reading I've done by activists who seek to derail "GMOs" are people who have no scientific background, and are on some kinda emotional crusade to prove that they're right, and they'll cling to a single "expert" in the field who breaks from the pack and says that these things are so bad and evil, and they use this person's credentials to give legitimacy to their opinion, while at the same time saying that the other 99.99% of experts in that field have no credibility.  How the actual #### can a logical person take that individual seriously?   I like to be logical, and I'm immediately turned off by people who make arguments based in emotion rather than logic.  That is why I think all the GMO lunacy people are talking about is complete BS.  Same type of people I see complaining that GMOs are going to cause cancer, mutations in children and other diseases all for the sake of corporate profits are the same people that have a radiation spewing device of corporate sponsored globalism (aka iPhone) attached to their ear 24/7. 

  Not to mention that full sized pistol or not, most folks aren't putting down effective fire with ANY pistol at 50 meters.  Kind of silly to say that everyone should carry a weapon capable of such range when I'm betting there are a very, very small percentage of shooters that could consistently hit a man sized target at that distance, let alone when someone is shooting back at you.  Let me say that it won't matter to the average shooter if they have a sooper dooper competition pistol with a thousand yard range.  Folks can say otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.    Just like most folks can't pick up a .5 MOA rifle and shoot .5 MOA groups.

  I haven't used one in over a decade.

Makes sense, but I figure that if I have to fire more than a couple 00 buck rounds through my 12 GA and I'm still shooting, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to follow up with a slug. If I ever find myself in a situation where I'm taking out the shotgun, I'm certain I don't know what that situation is going to look like. We can say that we wouldn't get into a shootout in our front yard because of defense or whatever, but that's exactly where my uncle put rounds into a bad guy during his SD shoot. A shotty allows for us to have a wide variety of ammo options. I like having that diversity ready to go. Then again, I do the same in my SD pistol. First few rounds are hollowpoints, then a few rounds of FMJ. Purpose being, if it can't be solved with three rounds of hollowpoint, I probably need more penetration. I don't know what situation I'll be in if I have to defend myself. I like knowing I've diversified my ammo to be prepared for most unknowns.

[quote name="Lumber_Jack" post="1125945" timestamp="1395088312"]in all honesty it may have been high jacked with the attempt to land it somewhere and instead its in the indian ocean somewhere[/quote] Most probable at this point, but not as much fun to speculate about. Since it is looking like they dropped down to a low altitude to avoid radar detection they may not have accounted for how that would affect fuel consumption? Also, it isn't probable that they would be able to cross into the airspace of India without being detected by radar or the half billion or so Indians who would have noticed a 777 flying at low altitude. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't approve of using such tactics. If special interest groups want to hold the gun of the media to the head of a business in order to get them to submit to their will, that is their business. It won't be effective forever. People will tire of it eventually. I won't support an organization or cause that threatens people to submit to their will, even if that cause or organization shares my beliefs. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Dustbuster" post="1125789" timestamp="1395067432"]I'll take one guess : If we both play motorboat, nortre dame will win every game, and u look like a millionaire Lol Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.[/quote] Ha, no. I said it was clever. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  No, it was actually pretty clever; clever enough that I've even used it on an educated sober lady once and got a smile and a "touche"... wife wasn't amused by it first time I got her with it.  She's a tough cookie.  I haven't heard it used by others before, so I can't reveal the line and risk it being released into society.  Gotta save something to help the boy when he gets to college.

[quote name="R_Bert" post="1125469" timestamp="1394995513"] on a not related St. Paddy's note - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 50th motor-boater?? eeewww.[/quote] Surprising enough, I'm pretty sure that I was the first one to motor boat those girls that evening. I had a line back then I'd use on dumb chicks which allowed me to fondle the breasts of women I just met without getting slapped or arrested. Actually would get a laugh out of it. I'm sure alcohol helped too. Ah, those were the days. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think there's ever a question of how accurate Glocks are, or most pistols for that matter.  They're almost always going to be more accurate than the shooter attached.  That is what should always be focused on, not the machinery.  The trick is getting a bag of flesh and bones to figure out how to use that machinery to its full potential, balancing shooter accuracy and speed.  That is harder to do on some pistol designs than others.  Glock is a great, natural design for a person who hasn't been conditioned on a different type of pistol, but for folks who have been conditioned on a different grip angle, they have to relearn the muscle memory.  Unless, of course, the shooter is someone who is only concerned about lining up the sights and not the speed at which those sights can be lined up.  In that case you could apply the logic to an 18th century flintlock.