Chucktshoes

Your charging times are grossly outdated. For example, Tesla superchargers will charge a vehicle from 0 to 80% in 30 minutes, and to 100% in 90.

Not only that, but I just saw report that said he fired 10 shots and made multiple affective hits from a distance of 40 yards away. What an absolute Chad. I’m curious as to what gun he was carrying. Not because it matters that much in the grand scheme of things, but out of a personal desire for it to be something cheap. Being prepared to defend yourself and others is for poor people too. There is a lot of elitism in the gun community, and that’s just my personal axe to grind.

Elisjsha Dicken (the Good Samaritan and of the two people with a gun that day, the only one who’s name I care about) did not have a permit. He was legally carrying under the Indiana constitutional carry law that went into effect 16 days ago.

Rob is 1000% correct here. No the eff you don’t. The only things to be gained here are negatives. And even the things you think are positives are more terrible than you know.

Full hallway video from Uvalde has been released. If you choose to watch it, it will be infuriating to watch the incompetence and total inaction at play here This pretty much says everything I really could about it.

It’s easier to back into a spot than to back out of one. Also, it’s habit as most of my parking is in truck much, much larger and you always back those in.

Happy to be of service.

Actual CATs from North American Rescue.

So important. If one is training/working with other folks then IFAKs should be standardized in contents and placement.

I put them to use and have them staged everywhere. To the OP, the CAT is the best to use. Nothing is as effective, but other styles can be effective as long as you aware of their limitations. Biggest thing is to make sure you train and practice with them. You don’t want to be trying to read an instruction manual when you or someone else is bleeding out.

I believe Garufa is correct.

This one is all you.

As far as he’s concerned, that is the law.

What folks may or may not do on a hypothetical day in the future is one thing but it is explicitly against the TOS to solicit or promote engaging in illegal activity. Outside of being against the rules, openly talking about breaking the law (even if the law in question is a bunch of BS) is stupid and asking for needless trouble. In the interest of the wellbeing of any dogs that may live or even just be in the general vicinity of your house, I’m locking this thread. We’re done here.

The Lulz is no longer going to be joining this conversation, ever. His thoughts on FP aren’t in play anymore. We can leave talk of Russia and Bolsonaro to the side. ——————— If it is prohibited to use a firearm for self defense even when the criminals have them, then yes, one’s right to self defense has been effectively removed. Maybe not in name, but definitely in practice. It’s a semantic dodge to pretend otherwise. This is the norm around the world. The US is one of the few countries that explicitly recognizes the right, but there is no way you don’t already know that. If one is limited to fists or melee tools to defend one’s person than the winner of any confrontation will almost always be the person who is bigger, stronger, and more skilled. Unless one party has a firearm in which case they will win nearly always. In an example of the practical outcome of this, to remove the ability of someone to use a firearm for self defense is to condemn almost all women to be the victims of almost any man that wishes to do them any sort of harm. Or different, non-firearm example. In the Jim Crow era poll taxes, literacy tests and other obstacles were in place to prevent black folks from voting. Sure, they had the right, in theory, but did they in practice? Not in the least. Nobody pretends otherwise. So to answer the question I posed rhetorically earlier, yes. If you remove someone’s ability to effectively exercise a right, then you have removed that right.

Before The Lulz went off the deep end, he made a valid point about denying the ability to use effective tools for self defense is to essentially remove the right of self defense. A great and recent example of this comes from our neighbors up north https://www.dailywire.com/news/guns-must-not-be-used-for-self-defense-canadas-trudeau-insists

Actually, you haven’t schooled anyone. You basically strolled in and did the pigeon on the chessboard strut. You’re new here so this is your one free warning. We expect better of folks than this. You wanna debate your point, do it with reason and facts. Strawmanning, ad hominem and name calling aren’t helpful on any level.

I can’t say for certain that what you’re asking for is illegal, but it’s definitely very close to that line. You need to acquire a jig and perform the work yourself.

I’ll take the blame on this one. My bad. That said we’ve been due for a hard pivot thread derailment. It’s been a while since the last one.

I don’t know what, if any, biases statista hold. Everytown on the other hand is a Bloomberg funded organization created for the sole purpose of enacting gun control so its biases are a known quantity. One is a data set of unknown quality. The other is a data set that is extremely suspect in its veracity due to the strong bias of its source.

You do have an ignore button. I’m a proponent of making use of it if one finds another person’s posts a problem. Sadly, I gave that up when I became a mod.

No, no public voting of that. Not how we do things around here. We have been an echo chamber for long stretches of time. It’s why I am so happy when diverse worldviews arrive and help us not to be that.