Another School Shooting

[StLucieBengal]

(05-22-2018, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have been a grown man for almost 40 years and I have never needed to punch anyone.  And it has never been a "recipe for disaster".

Resorting to punching someone is a "recipe for disaster" much more often than being smart enough to avoid a physical fight.  How many people do you know that have been arrested for "not fighting"?

Where did I say adults needed to fight? This is about me saying teenage boys needed to know what it’s like to take a punch to the face. They don’t arrest for a fight in the cafeteria. At least not back when life wasn’t so soft.

Boys growth is stunted when you take away opportunities to be aggressive. As I said before. I’m not advocating bare knuckle brawling.... just saying that boys need to know what it’s like to take a punch. You wouldn’t understand that since you have no idea what it feels like.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-22-2018, 07:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I've probably been punched at least 20 times in the face/head area in my life (not everyone understands my sense of humor). I'm an above average fighter because I try to be funny.  

Anyway, your right. Actually, punches really don't hurt do to the adrenaline at the time because your first thought is self defense and not worrying about past tense. You feel soreness later. Although, I did have an ex once who friggen nailed me straight in the nose. That shit hurt. Probably because I knew I couldn't retaliate.

Exactly.

Good to know your not a flincher. Doesn’t surprise me at all.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2018, 07:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Tact is important.  I have never devalued it, but there is always a time when a man has to step up.   Hopefully they never have to use it but there comes a time in a man’s life when he has to go one way or another and the rest of their life path depends on that choice.   If you have never taken a punch you are more likely to shy away.  

I’m not advocating for life to be a bare knuckle boxing brawl on a daily basis.   Just saying that a man should know what it’s like to take a punch and how to actually punch someone.

There's a difference between defending yourself when you HAVe too and "every boy needs to get punched in the face".

Get your stories right....this time.

[*Nately120*]

(05-22-2018, 07:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where did I say adults needed to fight?  This is about me saying teenage boys needed to know what it’s like to take a punch to the face.   They don’t arrest for a fight in the cafeteria.   At least not back when life wasn’t so soft.  

Boys growth is stunted when you take away opportunities to be aggressive.   As I said before.   I’m not advocating bare knuckle brawling....  just saying that boys need to know what it’s like to take a punch.    You wouldn’t understand that since you have no idea what it feels like.

Honest question.  If I was never fortunate enough to get punched in the face before I turned 18 and therefore missed this essential learning opportunity, what (if anything) can I do now to make up for that which I have missed?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-22-2018, 09:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Honest question.  If I was never fortunate enough to get punched in the face before I turned 18 and therefore missed this essential learning opportunity, what (if anything) can I do now to make up for that which I have missed?

Ask your buddy to punch you in The face. If he looks at you funny then find one with more testosterone. After you take your punch, the next night go punch the first guy you asked. Then two of you can be liberated.

[Bengalzona]

I have probably taken more punches to the face than most of the people on the board here. The only things that I have ever learned from "taking a punch" is that:
1) I don't like getting punched in the face,
2) I had better duck more,
3) try to get the first punch in and make it a good one,
and
4) violence in any form is a really stupid way of resolving things.

There is no cause for a modern society to encourage its young people to fight each other. It does not "toughen them up" or "prepare" them for anything. Rather it creates physical, psychological and emotional traumas which are unseen. This is why the military services officially stopped permitting drill instructors to punch trainees in the basic training.

Sparta died centuries ago (which is a good thing because it's pretty whack when the only way you can convince your men to have sex with their wives is to dress the wives like young boys and have the man sneak up on them in the dark!)

[*Nately120*]

(05-23-2018, 12:21 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ask your buddy to punch you in The face.   If he looks at you funny then find one with more testosterone.  After you take your punch, the next night go punch the first guy you asked.   Then two of you can be liberated.

Will you make a man of me, Lucie?  I'm on my knees . strike me with your dripping testosterone .

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

To get this thread away from Fight Club status, allow me to ask a question.  Why have we heard no calls to ban revolvers and shotguns after this shooting?

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To get this thread away from Fight Club status, allow me to ask a question.  Why have we heard no calls to ban revolvers and shotguns after this shooting?

Because they are not designed for high volume killing.  Large caliber revolvers only hold about 5-6 shells and a shotgun is about the same.

[fredtoast]

Since Lucie also encourages fathers to take their sons to brothels maybe that would be a good place to get them punched in the face.

Kind of a two-for-one educational experience.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-23-2018, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because they are not designed for high volume killing.  Large caliber revolvers only hold about 5-6 shells and a shotgun is about the same.

I don't know if they are designed for it or not, but someone killed 32 people at Va Tech with two handguns.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 04:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know if they are designed for it or not, but someone killed 32 people at Va Tech with two handguns.

He probably could have killed a lot more with an AR-15.


I have said all along that "assault rifle" bans are way down on my list of needed gun control regulation.  But I do understand why so many people want them banned.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2018, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because they are not designed for high volume killing.  Large caliber revolvers only hold about 5-6 shells and a shotgun is about the same.

I'm sure the ten dead people appreciate the distinction.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 05:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He probably could have killed a lot more with an AR-15.

Or a lot less if someone trained was there armed with such a weapon to stop him. 

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 05:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sure the ten dead people appreciate the distinction.

No.  They can't.

But all of the people alive because he did not have high volume ammo weapons sure do.

If the at-15 was not a more efficient killing weapon our soldiers would be carrying revolvers and shotguns instead.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  They can't.

But all of the people alive because he did not have high volume ammo weapons sure do.

If the at-15 was not a more efficient killing weapon our soldiers would be carrying revolvers and shotguns instead.

Hell, I don't know any Soldiers that carry AR-15s.

But as to carrying a Shotgun: Here's your boy bfine in a combat zone:

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 06:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I don't know any Soldiers that carry AR-15s.

But as to carrying a Shotgun: Here's your boy bfine in a combat zone:

I know military uses all types of weapons from pistols to flamethrowers, but it was my understanding that the standard combat weapon was an semi auto/auto assault rifle because they were much more efficient at killing people.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know military uses all types of weapons from pistols to flamethrowers, but it was my understanding that the standard combat weapon was an semi auto/auto assault rifle because they were much more efficient at killing people.

Depends on this situation; WTS, the AR-15 does not have an auto (burst) setting. I preferred the shotgun for close quarters (and plus when you pumped it folks took notice) and many preferred the pistol for the same situation. The M4 was preferred for killing enemies at a distance. 

[Bengalzona]

(05-23-2018, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Depends on this situation; WTS, the AR-15 does not have an auto (burst) setting. I preferred the shotgun for close quarters (and plus when you pumped it folks took notice) and many preferred the pistol for the same situation. The M4 was preferred for killing enemies at a distance. 

Few things clear out a crowd quicker than a shotgun pump.

[*Nately120*]

(05-23-2018, 06:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I don't know any Soldiers that carry AR-15s.

But as to carrying a Shotgun: Here's your boy bfine in a combat zone:

And all this time I pictured myself arguing with that woman guzzling that bottle of booze.